Superman

There is no good defensive team that does what the Colts do.

His real name is Ga'Quincy. Kool-Aid is better...

I was nervous before the Bengals game, just seemed like a not great time for us to be playing them. The Bengals looked frisky, their backup QB looks good, etc. I'm taking the Colts this week. I get why Colts fans are always nervous when playing the Steelers, and I'm not who thinks the Colts are a great team in hiding or anything. We're an average team, and can be beat by anyone. But I think the Colts are a better team, in a better situation, and should be locked in after getting spanked last week. Their offense is a Panthers/Patriots level offense, the kind the Colts have handled well this season. Trubisky is really, really bad. Their offense has scored 194 points (less than 15/game), they're really bad on third and fourth down, second worst in the red zone, fifth worst points/drive and scoring percentage, and they're bottom ten in a bunch of other stats. One bright spot is they don't really turn the ball over, but Trubisky is more turnover prone than Pickett. Their defense is just as average as ours, and they won't have TJ Watt. A lot of their defensive stats are eerily similar to ours; it's kind of weird that they give up 5 fewer points per game. I just think this is a good matchup for the Colts.

Nothing would surprise me either, but my point was that they're probably not as good as their record would indicate. They're the weakest of the seven win teams in the AFC, IMO.

The Steelers are a mess, every game they've won has been due to a bunch of flukey things happening late in the game. They just got beat by a terrible Patriots team. I think the Colts are better. And Trubisky is pretty bad. But in the Steelers favor is the fact that they played last Thursday, so they'll be on nine days rest. The Colts will be on six days rest.

It wasn't fun, except for the end of the 2nd quarter. Sloppy game, everything went wrong, the OL got whipped, we can't defend the pass... Basically just fewer missed throws this week from Minshew. Limitations are still right there where they always have been.

It's in bold, it must be true.

I just rewatched the Bengals game. I can't speak for a play for play grade, but I think he was better this week than last. Still not great.

Levis was really good at the end of the game tonight. It was looking pretty rough for most of the game, he sailed a lot of throws and was pretty inaccurate. But his pocket presence looks a lot better than it did a few weeks ago, he's a little more decisive, and even when I think he holds the ball too long, it seems like he has his eyes down field and isn't panicking.

We actually drafted Parris Campbell that year, and signed Devin Funchess. Luck retired before the season started, Campbell suddenly couldn't stay healthy, and Funchess got hurt in Week 1 and never played for us again. Agreed for sure. I think people are overly critical of Pierce, but I still don't want Ballard to sit back and not upgrade the WR position this offseason. There are a couple of potential FAs that we should have our eye on, and the draft is promising as well.

We have a backup QB and a backup RB, and the OL didn't play well. It's interesting to me that we can look at our upcoming opponents and say 'they're all bad QBs and mediocre teams, we should be able to get wins,' but at the same time not realize that fans of other teams probably have a similar reaction to seeing the Colts on their roster. We've been scratching out some wins this season, which is a testament to the players and coaches, but we know we have a young roster with a lot of question marks, we're missing some good players to injury, and we have a backup QB who has some obvious limitations. I think we can beat anyone left on the schedule, but we can just as easily lose to anyone left on the schedule.

They evaluate every play, and determine how the player performed. That's compiled into a grade for the game. Not based on stats or outcome, just based on their judgment of how the player performed on each play.

I guess I don't understand what you guys are posting then. Is 58.8 his overall grade for the season right now?

@Solid84 @w87r Did I miss this thread last week? Could you share Minshew's grade?

Different strokes... Some people buy season tickets already knowing that they intend to sell some of the games to offset the cost. And of course people can do as they wish. I think we'd all rather see only Colts fans in attendance, and not have the stadium taken over by fans of the opposing team. But I think for most cities, the obligation is on the team to be competitive and relevant, in which case you're more likely to have home team fans showing up. I'm in LA, where the Chargers (and the Rams to a lesser extent) have completely different issues with fan attendance, even if the team is good. But in more established fan cities, like Indy, if the Colts were real contenders, there probably wouldn't be an issue with Steelers fans taking over.

Question about this. Do people usually do resale through an official site? In which case, you don't know who's buying the tickets. And what would it take to find someone who is a Colts fan to buy at resale value?

Yeah, for example...

It's not just about whether you're playing zone, or what kind of zone you're playing. Other factors include whether you're playing press or off coverage, how you're matching patterns, what you do against trips/bunch, etc. Also, despite the fact that every team plays zone most of the time, other teams still use different coverages and pressures with greater variety than the Colts, because they recognize that you have to adjust your defense situationally.

What's wrong with that? It's not like we have a super talented defensive roster, or a whole lot invested into that side of the ball.

Speaking for myself, the questions about our pass defense are specific to whether a team playing this kind of defense can hold up against good QBs and OLs. We played a bunch of QBs with bad OLs and got reasonably good pressure and a lot of sacks. Yesterday, we played a QB who is playing well, and an OL that kept him clean, and it didn't go so well. Then there's the issue of blown coverages, and missed tackles. And that's more about youth and personnel.

Burn the tape is something for good teams that have an uncharacteristically bad game. I think the tape from this game will be something of a reality check.

The questions about Hurts were about his ability to consistently make on time, accurate throws, within the rhythm of a pro style offense. Accuracy, footwork, throwing motion, etc. Not physical limitations. Hurts has improved significantly in all of these areas since he was drafted, but it's his ability to function in the passing game + his impact in the running game that has changed opinions. The guy who replaced Hurts in Alabama -- Tua -- was considered a potential franchise QB prospect when he was drafted, and he's more physically limited than Hurts in virtually every way. Those viewpoints have pretty much flip flopped. Neither player has changed physically. Have you seen anything from Ehlinger that makes him look like a capable NFL QB period? Game manager, franchise QB... even serviceable backup? In college or in the NFL? The evaluation of Ehlinger is based on the way he plays, not just his physical abilities.

Okay, that's my point. Even if that's your main criteria, everyone else doesn't have to agree that game manager = physically limited QB. And if a person values different criteria than you, that doesn't make them a hypocrite or mean that they're stereotyping. And while I can see how a person could simplify the game manager designation down to strictly physical ability, I do not think that's ever been considered a serious definition for what makes a QB a game manager. It happens to be your preferred criteria. Why does whatever people said about Hurts coming out of college hold priority over what people think of him now? What if he's simply outplaying their expectations of him, and in recognition of that, they acknowledge him as something more than a game manager? And why can't the same be true of Purdy?

I'm trying to help you see that this is a flawed analysis on your part. All game managers have physical limitations. (Let's accept this as fact for now.) Jalen Hurts has physical limitations. (Again, accepting as fact.) Does this make Jalen Hurts a game manager? Can you see that for other people, the game manager designation is not entirely based on a QB's perceived physical limitations?

All birds have wings. Butterflies have wings. Doug, are butterflies birds?