Superman

I'm curious to see how that goes. McVay is one of the best offensive minds and play callers in the league, and I'd like to see how he manages Wentz. The dude is very talented, and when his decision making is sound, he's been very productive.

Tepper should have been suspended.

I think the plan all season was to have the center handle protections, which makes sense with a rookie QB. In that game, our starting center was out, and our rookie QB was out. It would make sense to think that the veteran QB would be more locked in on protections, but all indications are that French was calling the protections in that game. No matter who was technically responsible for the protections, I agree that some of it is the responsibility of the QB. There were plays where Minshew appeared to have no idea where the pressure was coming from, which is very concerning just from a QB standpoint. If we add the backup center element, it's even more concerning. Thankfully, Ryan Kelly is practicing today, so maybe he's able to go on Saturday. What's happening here?

No, definitely not. Moose is only interested in crusading against Chris Ballard, and rubbing Colts fans noses in it. I was just countering the '5th in sacks' stat with some context that I find meaningful. Like I said, I'll take the sacks all day, but I think we need to be better at getting consistent pressure. And like you said, the defense needs to get better at other stuff as well. I think we mostly agree on our opinion of the quality of the defense. I'm not hating on the pass rush, I just don't think we can count on our pass rush being able to generate sacks at this rate if we don't get better at generating pressure.

??? When did anyone suggest that the defense is constantly in 3rd and longs? You have your issues with the defense. I have my issues with the defense. I don't know why there seems to be a disconnect. Maybe you think I was agreeing with moose earlier? I assure you, I'm not.

All the usual starters played, except for Kelly. It was also Minshew's first game as a starter, when Richardson was sidelined with the concussion. So it's not all on French, but it does highlight a specific area where we missed Kelly.

I'm not a huge PFF grades person either, but the eye test doesn't look good for French. Biggest problem is that he's not good calling the protections. One example is the Ravens game, when Minshew was getting destroyed by free rushers all game long. There's been a definite drop off from Kelly to French every time Kelly has been sidelined this year.

Yeah he's probably out. If he can't practice tomorrow -- which seems unlikely if he's in a boot today -- he's probably not gonna play.

Yeah, I don't think we have that kind of playmaking DL. I think we have a more opportunistic DL. And anything can happen Saturday night. The Colts aren't good enough for me to be confident about any matchup, especially not one against a QB who has been as good as Stroud has been at times this year.

Can I interest you in a tasty 3rd and 16 play that goes for 18 yards and a first down? How about a juicy 4th and 10 that goes for 16 yards? We did both against the Raiders. Third and 14 against the Falcons, 3rd and 19 against the Steelers... You want stops on third and short, I'm waiting for us to be consistent on third and long.

I think you're missing me. I'm not arguing that we have a bad pass rush, and I never called sacks a misleading stat. In fact, I agree that sacks are more valuable than pressures, and have argued the same in the past. A sack ends the play, whereas anything can happen after a pressure. However, pressure is still valuable; it's effect is cumulative, and should not be disregarded. My point is simple: A team that doesn't get a lot of pressure is not likely to get a lot of sacks. When this does happen, it should be treated as a statistical outlier, not an ideal. The fact that the Colts get a lot of sacks without getting a lot of pressure is most likely influenced by the level of offensive competition we've faced this season, and the result is unlikely to be sustainable. So if anyone thinks that setting a team record for sacks means that the pass rush is "good," I think that's a mistaken conclusion. By the way, the defense deserves big props for the Ravens game. It's a great example of why I think Bradley needs to be more flexible with his approach. But just a couple weeks ago, we couldn't get a hand on Jake Browning, which demonstrates the wide level of variance that exists with a defense that doesn't get consistent pressure.

I wasn't a fan of the hire when we made it, and all the reasons I didn't like it at the time have manifested over the last two seasons. I didn't mind the Colts retaining Bradley and his staff for 2023, but I think the defense is limited by Bradley's philosophy, so I think we need to make a change. So if Steichen lets Bradley go, I think it would be for the best. That said, I think it can get worse than Bradley, so just making a change won't make me feel good. I would hope we'd go after a guy who can coach a modern, dynamic defense. If we hire Leslie Frazier or Jack Del Rio, I'd be pretty irritated. If Steichen keeps Bradley -- and honestly I think that's the most likely outcome at this point -- I'd be disappointed. I think it's an area where the team is deficient, and I'd like to see them attempt to make an improvement. It wouldn't be completely deflating, as I think there are some simple areas where the execution can be tightened up that would make a big difference -- cleaner coverage, better tackling, to be specific. But I think Bradley's approach keeps a ceiling on the defense, so I'd prefer a difference DC.

NFL put this trash out today. Basically blaming the Lions for the refs' mistake, even though what the ref said happened OBVIOUSLY isn't what happened, even on the video that the NFL is showing here.

Not to take any credit away from you or anyone for an idea that I agree with, but I don't even think it's a novel concept. It seems kind of obvious that our offense is limited by the circumstances. And even if we had Richardson all year, I think there would have been some limitations, just of a different kind. I expected them to build the offense gradually, bringing a rookie QB along very deliberately. I like a lot of what Steichen has shown so far, and I get the impression he has a lot more in his bag. We might see some of it in the next week (or two??) as the stakes get bigger. And I also have some concerns about Steichen's gameplans. Early on, I felt like he wasn't able to get the offense in any rhythm, some of the short yardage plays were stalling out, etc. That stuff can take time with a new staff and young team. And since then, I have some questions about why Pittman gets all the gameplan specific stuff in the passing game -- even screens, which I'd expect to go to Downs or McKenzie. So it's not like I think Steichen is perfect, but I think the good far outweighs the bad so far. And that's just talking about the offense. I might be more encouraged by Steichen the HC than I am by Steichen the play caller. He seems locked in and fully engaged with all elements of the game, he hasn't seemed overwhelmed by the moment at any point so far, his game management is on point, and it looks like he's raised the level of accountability and intensity throughout the entire operation. Like you, I'm very optimistic moving forward.

There could be lots of reasons for it. I'm pretty confident that, in the Colts case, it's a mix of scheme and ability. You say not every stat is an indictment of ability; it's also true that not every stat is an indication of ability. If people get the impression that the Colts have a strong pass rush because they're fifth in sacks, I think they're reaching flawed conclusion. My point is that I don't think it's sustainable for any team to get a lot of sacks over a noteworthy sample size if you're not getting a lot of pressure. And I think the 81% of pass plays that don't get pressured are more impactful than the 49 total pass plays where we got a sack.

It was confusing because the refs didn't know what they were doing. They took about 20 seconds to stop the clock, then charged the Raiders with a 10 second run off because they thought it was a Raiders player being taken out. Once they realized it was a Colts player being taken out, they put the time and the run off back on the clock.

He got taken out by the spotter, so he was definitely checked during the game. He obviously cleared that evaluation, and went back in. But we've seen that happen, and then the guy shows up with symptoms the next day. I just thought it was something to keep an eye on.

They also have no problem drafting a guy as a prospect at one position, then moving him as they get to see him up close. Braden Smith, mostly a guard in college, Ballard saw him as a guard, then they put him at tackle and never looked back.

And EJ Speed stayed out of protocol... That's good news.

We signed him because he's a good backup, and that's been reinforced this season. But we also signed him before the draft, so it's possible that the team wants a backup that is more similar to Richardson. We could do a lot worse than Minshew, but there's an argument for going in a different direction.

It's a good point about the alignment, but I don't think announcing the eligible is meant for the fans. I think it's meant for both teams, and I'm sure it impacts how the defense responds. No matter what the alignment, if the refs announce #70 eligible, you have to cover him. I get why Campbell went for it despite the penalties. He wanted the do-or-die situation, and had a chance to win the game on one play. He probably also didn't want to go to OT. The "right" call was to kick, but I get what he was trying to do. And if Goff makes a better throw... As for the tripping penalty, I think just more of a mistake. Two players wearing the same color pants, the refs messed up. Not that it's excusable, it's just a more garden variety mistake. A good example of why replay should be expanded to include certain penalties. Too often there are obvious blown calls that affect the game, and simply watching the replay would allow for a quick correction.

Of course coverage is a major factor. But the Colts are conservative in coverage, and conservative in their rush scheme, which is a big reason why the pressure percentage is so low.

Minshew is basically at his ceiling as a player. I'd argue that the way Steichen calls the offense is what helps keep Minshew productive. Minshew is not a dangerous QB, period.

I love this thread. I don't know much about these players, but I completely agree with the concept. I think teams do this often, and the Colts have done plenty of it. They just converted Ronnie Harrison from safety to LB (and back again), and apparently that was their plan for him all along. Looking for unique ways to use athletic players is a great way to get more value out of the draft, and diversify your roster.

I agree with the bolded, for sure. To the first part, though, I have more mixed feelings. The ref obviously blew it, just listen to what the players are saying and acknowledge the right player as eligible. He totally screwed that up, and the NFL needs to own up to it. (Not the first high profile mistake that ref has made this year, by the way.) However, because the ref made a mistake on which player was reporting eligible, he also announced the wrong player eligible. Over the PA, he reported #70 as eligible. So the Cowboys defense would have covered #70. They left #68 open, but that's partly because they thought he wasn't eligible. If the ref had handled this properly, he would have announced #68 as eligible, and the Cowboys defense presumably would have adjusted accordingly. Maybe the play still works, but there's no way to know. I agree that the Lions got hosed, but I don't think it's as simple as 'if the refs handle that right, the Lions would have won.'