ztboiler
-
Posts
2,414 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ztboiler
-
-
3 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:
You do realize Ballard was on record stating he feels that Good & Heag will end up being solid tackles for the Colts right?
"we have Joe Haeg and (Denzelle) Good who we think can develop into solid right tackles."
There is a context issue here. Ballard made that statement in reference to how he processed his decisions of 2017. He may still feel that way but he did not specifically say so in 2018 context...and he went out and signed a starter level stop gap at RT when those players are entering year 3 and 4 of their development in 2018.
-
1
-
-
With Smith, it’s really not that complicated. If he shows starter level traits at RT once they see him for a bit, then that’s what he’ll be given his dimensions. Guards may be more of a premium than they were but Tackles that can play in space are still way harder to find...
-
In perspective...it’s a bad look for La Canfora that he didn’t do his homework and tweeted from his national platform with irrelevant information. Nothing else to see here.
-
7
-
-
We are reading a lot of notes so far that indicate our primary 3 Techs weigh 270#. Was hoping that this movie sequel would have a different plot. I suppose it’s possible that Ridgeway, Nunez, and others are seeing some base D action with the first team...but we certainly aren’t hearing about it.
-
He took a 2-14 team in full rebuild to the playoffs at 11-5 his first three years with 3 playoff wins while becoming the best 4th Q closer in the game.
Ya, He’s lived up to all rational expectations. I don’t think any number 1 pick QB has ever done these things out of the gate with the recipe he inherited.
2nd act TBD.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
I don't see Ballard doing that.
It feels like Ballard has this one right. Breeland is a desirable player, particularly in the new scheme, but not an impact player...and at a non-premium position to boot.
Furthermore, the market dynamics are July not March. So...it just doesn’t matter that much to Ballard if Breeland signs or not. I’ll bet he’s made a very fair offer in the range of 6M per year. 75% of March would be a good deal for both sides in a scheme where Breeland has every chance to succeed.
-
1
-
-
Doesn’t matter the location...Gotta love the irony for a star QB that missed a year...which way is the locker room...priceless to catch that on video.
-
There are a few things that negative outlooks are overlooking....
First - we began the defensive transition a year ago with personnel. Yes, our LB's are young and unproven but we have enough experienced personnel to run Ballard's 4-3. The core of our current defense was competent enough to win 8 games last year if we could have scored a little easier. That same core returns and is better suited to the new scheme with young talent specifically selected for it. I don't like the scheme...but that's got nothing to do with it.
Second - we'll score easier this year. We'll have an offensive identity and game specific planning. Luck or no Luck.
Third - The OL is going to be pretty darn good. We'll run the ball well.
It would be easy to hedge on all of our unknowns, but that posture overlooks that the foundation to win 6-8 games is already in place without Luck and Luck will add to that. We're a 10 win team already.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Superman said:
Understood. I think this defense has a tendency to become too passive as well, and I definitely prefer Zimmer's man coverage with more blitzing. Still a 4 down alignment, but more aggressive. Also more difficult to run. And Zimmer, unlike the Colts, has good defensive players, and did with the Bengals as well.
For where the Colts are right now, I'm fine with the defensive approach. It's the easiest to staff and the easiest to play. I think the most important positions are rush end, 3 tech, and safety. The Colts actually have some promising players at those positions, so there's potential for a good defensive performance right away. And then the young guys at corner and linebacker can "play fast" in a "simple" defense -- run, hit, tackle, etc.
And bigger picture, if you do have good pass rushers, good 3 techs and good safety play, this defense can be great. And you can still use replacement level players at corner and linebacker, especially when you don't want to give big second contracts to players in replaceable positions.
The contrast with Zimmer's defense is you still need everything the Tampa defense needs, plus you need man corners (they're paying Rhodes $14m/year, and he's worth it) and off ball linebackers who can play man coverage (Eric Kendricks is the man, but he's going to price himself out of Minnesota in a couple years, IMO; I'm assuming they let Barr walk next year). And they still have highly paid DL and a highly paid safety. Even with Cousins, they're currently spending $8m more on defense than on offense, and have the 5th highest defensive payroll in the league. It costs a lot to run Zimmer's defense, and that's distinct from the question of how you find those players in the first place. It comes down to good drafting, like almost everything else.
To me, the problem with how Polian built the Dungy defenses is he didn't value 3 techs the way he said he did, especially on draft day. His first round philosophy was always 'do you score TDs, take the ball away, or sack the QB?' and he never reconciled that with the fact that good 3 techs do sack the QB. There's also the fact that interior pressure is very valuable as well. The highest pick he ever spent on an interior DL was #42 for Larry Tripplett (average at best), and then #56 for Fili Moala (underwhelming). So it's also fair to ask whether he knew how to scout a good 3 tech.
We'll see how the Colts defense turns out. If it winds up being a bland, conservative Dungy/Meeks defense that can't stop the run, then I'm with you. But if they can put good pass rushers, good 3 techs and good safety play on the field, and tackle well, then it doesn't have to be a repeat of the soft, Manning era defenses.
Despite my negativity on the scheme, I’m bullish that Ballard will make his plan work at a very high competitive level. He believes in it, wants a more player driven scheme and the strategic roster resource management advantages you referred to. I’m not bullish that it ever becomes a championship caliber defense unless they diversify the scheme more than I fear....and they very well may.
The scheme isn’t limited to the way Dungy ran it...and I’m hopeful we can take it up a notch.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Superman said:
So what's wrong with the scheme?
Some of it is just personal preference. I don't like to watch it. We'll let teams march up and down the field between the 20's before stiffening in the red zone. We all know and lived the story. I got my fill of it in the Manning years, and always thought it contributed to our inability to win multiple championships. Ballard seems determined to recreate what he had in Chicago, and that's great if you find the pieces you need...but its a scheme that is too dependent on finding a superstar at 3Tech...exactly as Polian admitted in so many words.
One might say that we don't know yet what this version will look like....and that may turn out to be true, but all public commentary by coaches and Ballard has even included the Tampa 2 term along with "simplify" and "play fast" etc. I much prefer what Zimmer runs in Minnesota.
Rant off.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
Got it. So there's been discussion here about Lewis' role in the new defense, and I know there's concern that we'll go back to having undersized interior DL and won't be able to stop the run. For some, Lewis might represent those concerns. He might seem like the new Eric Foster.
We don't really know what the coaches are going to do with this new defense, but at this point, I see Lewis the way Rang does: as an interior pass rusher on passing downs, not a full time 3 tech. I don't think he'll be a very good edge rusher, but I do see him potentially being disruptive on the inside.
That's a different problem from not having strong interior DL play, particularly against the run. If they play Lewis inside on first down, that will be a problem. If he develops into an every down player, I think it will be as end on early downs, kicking inside on passing downs. Same for Autry. The Dungy defenses didn't have that player, besides Raheem Brock at times, who was maybe average at it.
I'm not worried about the interior DL play against the run. I think we have two versatile guys with potential to be disruptive 3 techs in Nunez-Roches and Ridgeway. And I think we have guys with 1-tech / nose ability in Woods and Stewart. However the depth chart shakes out, those guys are the key to the run defense. And if Lewis and Autry can give us some Michael Bennett-like impact in a hybrid role, that's a good thing. I'm assuming the staff knows those guys can't play interior DL every down.
Admittedly....I was really just using it as a passive aggressive opportunity to gripe about a scheme that I don't like much.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
That's exactly what I got from Rang's comments.
Or are you saying he's overselling Lewis' fit and importance? Because he does call him a specialist...
Right - he's overselling the importance of the undersized interior pass rusher to make this defense work. Every nickel package plays about the same around the league, and looks for specialists who can make their rush package work. To that end his fit isn't very unique in the league or even unique to how the Colts populated their roster in the heyday of the Tampa 2.
Rushing the passer on passing downs has never been the trouble spot for this defense. You can be competent in this scheme with specialists, but you can't be elite without the right 3Tech. Polian told us as much when he admitted he never found it. It's the chess piece that influences the offensive play calling the most. Little disruption from the 3Tech on first down and you take 5-8 yards for 2nd and short...and we all know the rest of the story with this scheme.
My exception with what Rang said is, I suppose, the posturing of insightful analysis about how it might help the Colts solve the puzzle with an under the radar chess piece. It doesn't...but it might help us win if we can build a big lead in the second half.
-
I’d be a bit more impressed if Rang included that Lewis is great fit to kick inside as a sub package rusher but he doesn’t project as the type of 3 tech that makes this defense go unless the Colts plan to repeat history. We’ve had that player here before and it’s an important fit today as it was then, but finding a good undersized interior pass rusher is not the dilemma of running his defense.
-
Article on the front page suggests Tyquan Smith and Denico Autry are being used heavily on the inside. This would foreshadow being even lighter and quicker than many of us hoped...and maybe not just on obvious passing downs. I'd rather not swing the pendulum all the way back to Raheem Brock on base downs.
-
1 hour ago, Aluckiswolverine said:
There seems to be a huge disconnect here. Chuck was garbage as a head coach, like really bad (my opinion).
He also seems like a decent human being who happened to beat Cancer. People on this forum can’t seem to seperate the two.
Chuck had cancer and he seems like a nice guy. You can still suck at your job and be called out on it. Being a nice guy and suffering from a horrible disease doesn’t give you a free pass in my book. I’m glad he beat cancer because F cancer.
Just my opinion, really bothers me when I see the usual “classy” Colts fans shred someone else’s opinion because maybe some fans think Chuck was a trash head coach.
I'd challenge the logic in your assessment of his coaching, not your ability to separate his coaching from his person, which you have done a reasonable job of.
I called, politely, for a coaching change as early as late 2015 - so yes, I believe he took us as far as he could in 4 years and shouldn't have gotten 6....however, you are completely ignoring how hard it is to win a game in the NFL, let alone engineer one of the greatest turnarounds in NFL history leading to 3 consecutive playoff appearances and 3 playoff wins. Its hard to do and it takes very good coaching.
Its OK with me if you don't think Chuck achieved anything in his tenure here - everybody gets to set the bar as they wish for themselves - but the numbers don't support that Pagano was a failure, nor did the eye test. 2012-2014 was a big success and a special time where it seemed like anything was possible and we came to expect the improbable again. Maybe the standard is no longer winning, but if it is then Pagano had a lot to do with it by definition....and anybody that says Andrew Luck did that by himself is revising history.
-
3
-
-
You don’t go from 2-14 to 11-5 three straight years without having something to offer as a coach. It was Pagano’s blueprint and leadership that directed a very special and unexpected Colts resurgence. Can’t forget or discount that. Loved every minute of it.
Thank you coach Pagano!
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
Valpo.....
Ballard's team won 4 games last year, not 3, but I know what you're trying to say....
Here's the problem.... the team won 4 games WITHOUT Andrew Luck. And typically the people here who don't like Ballard refuse to take that into consideration. Do you think the Colts win 4 games last year if Luck was healthy and played all 16 games? Of course not. Maybe they win 7, or 8, or 9? Now, how does Ballard's first year look?
You think he's done "diddly squat." I think he's done a ton. I loved his handling of free agency in 2017. I loved the discipline he showed when he let guys like Hankins and Poe come to the facility and leave WITHOUT a contract. He did that with others too. And it worked with Hankins, who later came back for a better deal for the team.
And I loved what Ballard did with his first draft. I thought he was a real pro.
And while I didn't love his handling of the free agency this year, I understand he had a plan and executed it. And that Irsay supported it. At any time, Irsay could've said to spend more money and he didn't and Ballard didn't.
And I appreciated that he handled Pagano with great respect and supported him the best he could.
And I love the moves he's made for this year's draft. He's handled himself like a man with a plan.
Ballard is a pro. And the rest of the NFL knows it, even if some of the fan base doesn't.
You don't think Ballard has done much. I think he's done a lot.... we see this very differently.
You are defending the indefensible...there is no quantitative defense of Ballard. Nor should there be. He was brought here to do his own thing, and he is doing it. It will either work or it won't. I love what Ballard is doing. All of it. But only because I think it will work. It may not. I say all that having admitted elsewhere that I dislike the defense he is is installing. I still think it will work.
But, Ballard is still indefensible. There is nothing to defend. People only have the opportunity to choose a positive or negative opinion based on what they like or don't like and what they think will or won't work.
You can't even defend Ballard by the winning of 4 games without Luck. His predecessor won 5 games without Luck in 2015. Such quantitative logic excludes too many variables. None of it matters. Yet.
-
42 minutes ago, #7ForDays said:
Forgive me if I come across as an * but bear with me:
1) Rankins is not in the same airfield as Donald. There is Donald and then there is Rankins. Only comparison between the two invovles the words "is significantly better than".
2) Hurst is not even comparable to Donald. The game tape shows that much. Just because their both short and freakishly strong at the point of attack doesn't mean they are equalivant talents. Donald's quickness is elite. Hurst, unfortunately, doesn't stack up.
3) Hurst is far more comparable to, like you said, Rankins. That's his ceiling barring any significant injury or complication.
I figured someone might over-read that and make this leap...so I should have written a disclaimer: No direct comparison is stated nor implied by the writer of this post. My fault.
Another disclaimer I make every year around here: I don't do player evaluations.
Evidently you do...
Donald was drafted 13th
Rankin was drafted 12th
The suggestion here is that some teams will see Hurst as teams saw Donald or Rankins on draft day when they projected them as worthy of a high pick.
-
We don't know enough about this new scheme to know how Corners will play, but we know enough to suspect that we won't be drafting premium 1st Round press corners anymore.
Additionally, Hurst is a premium, disruptive player as he projects to the next level. His fit really isn't ambiguous at this stage of the league's evolution. Some team will think he is Aaron Donald or at least Sheldon Rankin and pick him between 10 and 20.
-
7 minutes ago, krunk said:
Honestly I was just fine in the 3-4 defense. Just thought we needed better players. Oh well!!!! I'm not that big of a fan of just sitting back and rushing with 4. I like to bring the blitz a little bit. Hopefully Eberflus will do a little bit of both. I won't hold my breath though seeing that his mentors were Dungy disciples.
When your new coach is using the bend but don’t break phrase in his stock discussions about defensive approach, we all know what we’re going to get. However, the scheme does work perfectly if you get the right players....
Which leads to this...it’s Ballard’s choice. He wants to scout and select for this scheme. It’s all on him, rather than scheme and coaching. He wants it that way. I, for one, believe he can pull it off...but I still hate the scheme
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, krunk said:
That's if you're under the assumption that my stance is we don't need a good 3 tech. Which that's not really my stance at all. I was just evaluating one versus the other independently. But yes I agree with what you're saying. You need strong parts at all 3 spots to have a top level defense. Maybe I should have worded it differently.
Probably just degrees of emphasis. It’s this simple for me.... I’m not a fan of the new scheme because I’ve never seen it work without a player like John Randle, Warren Sapp or Tommie Harris in his prime. So much rides on finding a player like them that I’d rather build differently.
Only thing I really need to be excited is more press coverage than I think we’re about to see....I hate receivers running around with nobody close to them!
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, krunk said:
Will one of you guys understand I'm not saying we shouldn't get a 3 tech? I do think it's not likely we will get all 3 of them in this draft. I just think the edge players have a bit more value. Doesn't mean you miss out on the 3 tech or not target a good one if available . Trust me I see the value of the position.
I just think it's less managable if your edge players are bad versus if you have a good 3 tech and bad pass rushers. Ideally you would like to have strong play from all 3 if you can. The whole piece is important, but I think the edge players have a bit more value.
Here's why you've gotten resistance from me, despite the fact that we agree fundamentally....it's this reality built from our recent Colt's history: You can't have a solid D without great edge pressure, nor can you have an elite D without great interior pass rush. I simply have zero interest in repeating the defensive performance of '02 to '11. That scheme without a difference-maker at 3Tech was the number 1 reason why Peyton only won 1 Superbowl here. As great as those Colts teams were, and as much as we should all be grateful for what we had, they under delivered on their potential...and I see no reason to repeat that history unless you deal with the elements that prevented the scheme from working.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, krunk said:
So if we replace them with mediocre edge rushers where will the pressure be because they will just double team the 3 tech?
Don't get me wrong. It's not either/or. It's both. And the Edges are most important. I've said nothing to the contrary of that. However, Warren Sapp was the irreplaceable part in Dungy's scheme. Lots of guys could have played the role of Simeon Rice, but fewer Warren Sapps ever come along. You don't have to have DFree on the Edge to make the scheme into a top 5 D, but you do have to have a guy like Sapp or you'll hover around top 15 and only occasionally break into the top 10.
-
9 minutes ago, krunk said:
I think it's an important piece but it won't help your rush more than the ends is my point. We do need one, but if we miss out on something in this draft I'd rather it be that than missing on the edges.
If your point is that the Edge rush plan and personnel are more important...I do agree. Pass rush has to start on the edges to create interior space. However, to the bolded, not true. Interior pressure is the cornerstone differentiator of the most disruptive defenses in the era of the quick passing game.
How many times were Freeney and Mathis rendered invisible by off coverage and no pressure up the middle?
Colts release unofficial depth chart for Colts @ Seahawks
in Colts Football
Posted
Sure it was from last week but when you listen to it in context, he is referencing decisions made for 2017 draft and free agency based on beliefs held at that time...it’s possible that those beliefs are the same in 2018, but that is neither stated nor implied in the context of the interview.