Restored
-
Posts
2,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Restored
-
-
This is why you don't trust everything you see on Twitter from guys like this. This is fake news.
-
I would disregard any of those Jim Osborne tweets about Luck getting a second opinion in Ohio. Brad Wells and himself have been the kings of falsified rumors since around the time that Grigson got fired.
-
1 hour ago, J@son said:
well here's the thing, I don't really buy that either because there were a number of times they came out trying to air it out (the opposite of conservative) but that didn't work either.
honestly, it seems as though at least Chud and possibly Pagano have bought into the Luck hype. It seems to me at least like they feel like he's already an elite level QB that they don't have to worry about things like adjusting the playcalling to try to get him into a rhythm. Typically you'll see in the playcalling at the beginning of games/halves/etc that the OC will intentionally call some shorter, higher percentage throws to get the QB a few easy completions to get him into a rhythm. It's talked about in almost every game that is ever broadcast. But you don't see that from the Colts when Luck is on the field. It's like they feel like he hits the field already warmed up, already in his groove and they don't have to modify playcalling to help him with that, even when he's clearly struggling.
I think the latter has happened more frequently.
That's just a product of the offense itself. The offense has very little designed short/quick throws or even "rub" routes to get WR's open for easy completions. That has to change going forward or we will be sitting here having this discussion year after year.
-
17 hours ago, Superman said:
I don't think Pagano is interfering with the offense, but I don't know that for sure.
Pagano's very first hire was Bruce Arians, a Coryell coordinator. They rushed out and hired Pep, but he ran some sort of hybrid of Arians' stuff and his own stuff. Pagano brought in Chud as an assistant, and then made him the coordinator when Pep was fired. Chud is also a Coryell coordinator. Pagano also hired Brian Schottenheimer as the QB coach, and Schottenheimer is a Coryell guy. Pagano seems to clearly prefer the Coryell offense, and that's reflected in his choices for coordinators.
To that extent, the issues with the offense can be laid at Pagano's feet, but I don't think there's any evidence of Pagano interfering with the offense, beyond setting a general tone for the gameplans. He's probably influenced the coordinators to be more conservative than I think they should be, but even that's gotten loose at times.
As for what Chud and Pep ran with Luck and MH, there weren't really that many similarities, IMO. I think they both drastically changed the gameplans when Luck was out. And I think that's good coaching. It's too bad they didn't do the same for Luck.
That's more of what I'm alluding to. I think he's likely to have influenced the offense to come out conservative (which had lead to a number of slow starts), only to have to open up the offense once the team is down a couple of scores or more. You and I could never really know for sure but its something that I believe has been going on since Pagano's tenure began.
-
8 hours ago, Superman said:
Just tacking on, it's obvious that the play calling for Hasselbeck was night and day different than the play calling for Luck, even when Pep was still the coordinator. Which is another notch in the "Chud needs to get his act together" column.
I still think Pagano has been interfering more with the offense than we are lead to believe. It's odd that Chud and Pep would be running somewhat similar offenses with both Luck and MH.
-
1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:
Silly to expect Luck to be our best option for opening day.
I hope he is ready by game 7.
-
I think the biggest logical fallacy here is that while NFL players do indeed try to get cheap rings by joining an already great team, it rarely works. There's too many other variables that come into play (coaches, other players, one game playoffs, etc.) that simply make it too tough for players to just leave their respective franchises and form a "super team" and walk into a championship. Meanwhile in the NBA, the fact that the rosters are so small and that teams play a best of seven series usually all but assures that the best team(s) are playing for the championship each year (see Cavs and Warriors).
Additionally, in the NFL, teams can be quickly turned around, even if they are a small-market team. A solid draft and a few changes can have a team go from 8-8/9-7 to being in the Super Bowl. Meanwhile in the NBA, if a team is a small-market team and is in the bottom tier or in mediocrity, it takes a very high level of drafting and carefully planned free agent signings to really become a contender, especially in the western conference.
-
Good article that points out some of the various things that need to be done for the Colts and Luck to take the next step forward. One of the changes obviously needs to be with the offensive philosophy and play-calling as well. Time will tell if this happens.
-
On 6/20/2017 at 3:13 PM, Superman said:
Me too. I always wondered about keeping Freeney...
Yeah me too. I wonder if that factored into him letting go of Grigson (among the many other reasons). Maybe he realized that Grigson was making too many decisions that he had to overrule or step in on.
-
Yes, Pat has said the same stuff about Grigson over and over but one thing I think he added that I might've missed before was how it was Irsay's choice to keep him back in 12' and for him to be re-signed.
Makes me wonder how many other decisions Irsay had a hand in over the past seasons..
-
9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Actually, no.
The team announced back when Luck had his surgery that the timeline was 5-6 months. That's why many here are responding the way they are.
And secondly, most teams are giving target dates on their players. I even noted that Ridgeway had a much more recent shoulder surgery and the team has already announced he should be ready by training camp. It's only Luck that has a rehabilitation that is being kept in the dark. Same with other teams. They're giving rough timelines of when they expected their injured players back.
Go check NFL.com. They've got a story talking about how little information is out about Luck and how no one is talking about it. The way Luck is being handled is COMPLETELY iDIFFERENT than every other player and every other team.
I'm not overly worried, but I'd say I'm somewhat concerned. Irsay has already said he'll be back to start the regular season. But that doesn't say much about training camp.
Keeping things in the dark leads to fan and media speculation. The Colts are bringing this on themselves.
-
20 hours ago, krunk said:
Stephen Holder @HolderStephen
Hankins is at it again. I like his audacity. Colts could use more of it IMO. https://t.co/VGam4bkPp1
This is good. The team needs this type of attitude especially on defense.
-
On 5/16/2017 at 7:33 PM, Superman said:
Just hopping in here, Pep and Chud did basically the same things when they had to call plays without Luck. Pep shortened up the concepts early in the season when Luck was out for two games, and Chud followed that pattern when Luck was out after the Denver game. It was just common sense.
What's so frustrating is that, when Luck came back, Pep went right back to the low efficiency offense that he was running in the first two games. Then Chud installed his stuff in 2016, which was different than Pep's -- mostly in identity and rhythm -- but had similar results. If efficiency and modernization is important for your backups, why not let your Pro Bowl starter benefit from it as well?
It's like they keep thinking 'Luck can do this, let's put it on his shoulders and let him carry the offense,' rather than saying 'how can we make life easier on the offense and on the QB, while still taking advantage of his playmaking ability?'
I had hopes for Chud, based on the 2015 Denver game, the one and only game he called for Luck that year. The offense still was missing some of the elements I think it needs, but immediately Chud went with play action, got Luck on the move, etc. I hoped that he would continue building on that in 2016. He definitely did a better job than Pep, but I still think he's missing the simple stuff that would make this offense deadly.
I've always thought this was true from the very beginning since Arians. They knew that Luck could handle a workload, both mentally and physically, that most QB's in the league simply couldn't. So subsequently, they threw everything on him to make the offense go.
The Denver game in 15' definitely showed what this offense could do if the right types of plays are called as well.
More rollouts, more play-action and shorter throws are needed for sure.
-
21 minutes ago, dodsworth said:
I wasn't high on another reject from Cleveland but
after this article it gives me a bit of hope.
still questioning their Manziel pick while he was there?
It honestly seems like he was not really given any say so when it came to actually selecting the players. He could obviously inform them on what his studies showed but ultimately, the team was going to pick who they wanted.
I think that given Ballard's open communication approach that's been demonstrated so far, we will see Decker be able to fully thrive.
-
MJD is just salty that the Colts won the Super Bowl the same amount of times Jacksonville made the playoffs when he was there.
-
7 hours ago, RomanianColtsFan said:
I thought the most interesting remark he made was that current young players don't know how to deal with failure. As a personal note I would add that this extends beyond football.
Not to go off on a tangent or anything but I think that's part of the beauty of football. There are so many cross comparisons to life and what happens in it that it can give a whole list of lessons to follow and learn from.
-
13 hours ago, BOTT said:
I don't think it's guaranteed that Chuck comes back even if the colts do make the playoffs.
That's entirely a possibility as well. However, I think right the only way for sure Chuck doesn't come back is if the Colts don't make the playoffs again.
-
I think he will be a very nice change of pace back with game-breaking ability. However, I don't think he will be a 3 down back and his fumble issues are a concern. Solid pick for where they got him overall.
-
I believe the main reasoning for not letting Pagano go is centered around a few things:
1. Most of his coaching staff was turned over the year before and it takes time to really see if their systems will work.
2. Luck will be missing a large portion of the off-season and it doesn't make sense to completely overhaul the system in place, especially if he won't be able to fully immerse himself in it before the season.
If the Colts don't make the playoffs again this season, THEN we'll see Ballard bring in his own guy.
-
Just wow. I realize nothing is guranteed in the NFL and Glennon had to think the team would take a QB at some point in the draft but geez.
-
3 hours ago, Superman said:
We can say definitively that he has too small a sample size to make a big deal out of 3 drops in 2016. All I'm saying is that 3 drops is not that big of a deal. I'm not turning a blind eye to them, only saying let's not blow them out of proportion.
In general, regression to the mean would mean, just like we didn't expect Dorsett to have a 0% drop rate just because he didn't drop any passes as a rookie, we shouldn't hold a 5.1% drop rate over his head because of a bad sophomore season.
Then it's a difference of opinion given that your saying his 3 drops are not that big of a deal. Especially when he already has a fair amount of targets given the role he's been playing in the offense.
I say we should given his workload in the offense increased and his number of targets increased in a fair amount as well.
QuoteYou're completely missing the point. Whether it's 22 targets or 59 targets, it's too small a sample size to worry about drop rate. Doesn't matter what position.
I'd disagree. There is a significant difference between 59 targets and 22 targets. And position is even more important if we look at what role is being asked of the specific WR. It's expected that your #3 WR will not likely get as many receptions or targets as some of the other #2 and #1 WR's.
QuoteIt's still not irrelevant. The goal is to project what the player can become. If you have a player who dropped a bunch of passes in college, and he's still dropping passes as a pro at a similar rate, then you can nail that guy down as a pass dropper. For Dorsett, a 5.1% drop rate isn't typical.
Why would you need college to tell you the story that you are seeing at the pro level at the present time? If a player is dropping passes now in the pros and didn't in college, it shouldn't matter because what you are dealing with presently is a player who is struggling with catching the ball. We can say that college should or shouldn't tell us what a player can do but the truth is, once that player turns pro, you have to begin evaluating what he is doing at that level.
QuoteActually, you're the one making the stretch here. Your comment was objectively false, whether or not yardage is overrated (which you have not proven to any degree). A complete lack of productivity would mean no productivity. Dorsett does not have a complete lack of productivity.
It is highly overrated and I can give more examples to prove this point about yardage but it really isn't necessary. It's pretty common to have WR's and QB's appear to have a level of productivity if we examine their yardage totals (ie. Dorsett and Blake Bortles and numerous other examples) when in reality they are not. You're arguing semantics on "complete lack of productivity" to corner your argument when my main premise for that was to point Dorsett's overall production has been severely lacking since he's been drafted which is clearly document statistically.
QuoteChud's system is very similar to Arians' system, it has the same origins, and for the most part, the same drawbacks. I don't know what to say about Pep's offense; it lacked identity from start to finish, which was its major flaw, IMO.
In general, this offense doesn't have highly productive receivers outside of the top 2 guys. And more importantly, it doesn't promote passing efficiency, no matter who the receivers are. The QB is going to take more pressure, he's not going to be an upper 60s percentage passer (in general; there are some exceptions), and the passing concepts are going to stretch vertically more than horizontally.
If this were to be true concerning the top 2 guys in the offense, why didn't Dorsett excel last season when Moncrief missed a number of games? Wayne and Hilton were productive in 13' also (for the part of the season Wayne played).
QuoteBeyond that, even within this (flawed, IMO) offense, there are times when Dorsett is open, but he doesn't get targeted. The Raiders scenario is just the most recent and most glaring example, but I can document others. That's why I push back when people say 'he doesn't get open,' because it's simply not true. We can blame whoever or whatever, but Dorsett gets open more often than his targets would suggest.
And then, there's the belief that he and everyone else would have more open opportunities if our offense would scheme them open against certain defensive looks.
I don't disagree with how the offensive philosophy may be hindering the productivity of the WR's on some level but we also have to acknowledge that Dorsett simply hasn't produced at the level expected of a first round WR which fair or not, plays into people's perception of him. Add in the fact that coaches and himself have acknowledged his short-comings and you begin to understand why people around here are so critical of him. I sincerely hope he improves next season.
-
16 hours ago, Superman said:
Dorsett didn't drop any passes as a rookie, on 39 targets. Last year, he dropped 3, on 59 targets. (This is still a very small sample size; there are about 40 receivers with about 100 targets in 2016 alone.) Even if you use his two year rate as the mean, his drop rate should be projected more like 3.1%.
Again, how can we determine what that mean is for Dorsett? Is it based on his number of targets vs. drops? Is it relative to what other WR's ratios are? There really isn't a set criteria for it. My point is, we can't definitively say what his drop percentage would or would not be. All that we can accurately say for sure is that he had a high drop percentage last season based on his number of targets.
16 hours ago, Superman said:For example, Swoope had 2 drops in 22 targets. No one would project that he'd drop 9% of his targets over a meaningful sample size.
I disagree that college is irrelevant. Just like we'd question a player's hands if he had a lot of college drops (Will Fuller had a higher than average drop rate in college, and we dinged him for it; then he dropped five passes on 92 targets last year), we give credence to a player who had 1 drop in an entire season. Again, we expect a regression to the mean. In fairness, Dorsett struggled with drops early in his career at Miami, but that problem had all but disappeared by his final season.
There's a significant difference between 22 and 59 targets (Swoope and Dorsett) and your comparing two different skill positions where one has more of an emphasis on pass catching ability and is often targeted more.
It's only irrelevant once that player has become pro. Of course you must take into account what a player did or did not do well at the collegiate level early on but often times, that barometer becomes skewed fairly quickly once a player has turned pro. Players who had fumbling issues may not have them once they enter the league (for a linty of reasons) while others who never had issues with it all of a sudden will. This applies to other positions as well.
16 hours ago, Superman said:I never said Dorsett was giving solid production. I disagreed with your assertion that he had a "complete lack of productivity." That's objectively false. One catch for 50 yards is absolutely "production." Maybe not ideal, but production nonetheless.
Again, one catch for 50 yards does not constitute productivity. If you want to argue semantics on what is consider productive then that's fine but you and I both know that your argument for his productivity hinges on a very thin statistic with yardage which I've already shown is one of the most overrated and inflated measurable stats for WR's. It's the same logic that people use to point out yardage as a barometer for productivity for a QB like Blake Bortles who racked up a ton of yards in garbage time over the past couple of seasons. Now, Dorsett's yardage isn't a product of garbage time but the idea that yardage=production is often highly mid-judged.
16 hours ago, Superman said:The reason I pin this on the offense -- besides my conviction from the beginning that the approach is inherently flawed, even at its best -- is not to excuse the player. We've had multiple receivers struggle in secondary roles on this team over the years. That includes Hilton at times; in early 2013, he was splitting #2 reps with DHB, and his production was up and down. None of our secondary or tertiary receivers, outside of Hilton, have thrived in that role.
But to be fair, is that not considerate of the players rather the system? Arians had his own offensive system. Pep did in 2013 and then opened it up significantly more in 2014. Then obviously Chud is running his system now. It would just seem odd that over the course of these different offensive systems that the same slotted player would not succeed. Instead, I think it's more pertinent to look at how these players (DHB, Nicks, Avery for example) have faired outside of the Colts offensive system to gain perspective on if it was the player or the offensive system.
-
16 minutes ago, Superman said:
Sure there is. Statistically, you can expect a regression to the mean, given the relatively small sample size. Especially for a player that, when targeted more consistently in college, almost never dropped the ball.
And what is that mean? If anything, his drop percentage relative to his catches would likely stay consistent if his receptions were to increase. Not the other way around. College is irrelevant. There's plenty of players that were successful in many different areas in college and don't always have those skills transfer to the pro level.
16 minutes ago, Superman said:I'd like to see charting that supports this conclusion.
Don't have those for you. Going off what I've seen and reviewed since he's entered the league. I'm sure someone has the time to chart it or has already.
16 minutes ago, Superman said:You're moving the goal posts. There's quite a difference between "complete lack of productivity" and "solid productivity." Yardage is a measure of productivity. Dorsett actually had a higher catch rate and a far higher yards/target and yards/catch than Moncrief.
The problem is, Dorsett isn't giving the team solid productivity either. Saying that yards is a measure of productivity doesn't make it so either. Maybe your way of measuring productivity is different but I believe most would agree that 1 catch for 50 yards hardly constitutes productivity.
16 minutes ago, Superman said:I'm obviously not asking for perfection. I'm simply asking for common sense adjustments that would promote greater productivity, make better use of the weapons we have, and minimize the weaknesses of the offensive line. I've been asking for those adjustments since 2012. Our passing offense is flawed, and until it's adjusted, we won't get premium production and efficiency out of our QB or our receivers.
If Luck has a wide open receiver in the middle of the field, directly in front of him, on 3rd and 2, in the shadow of his own goal post, and doesn't trust that receiver enough to throw him the ball, then that receiver shouldn't be on the field. Another coaching issue... but I don't believe that Luck simply doesn't trust Dorsett, not when you watch him throw lobs to Dorsett 60 yards down the field.
If you watch that play, though, it was designed to scheme Hilton open, and it worked, except he fell down. But even before he fell down, the defense bailed out and basically surrendered the first down across the middle, leaving Dorsett wide open right away. Not only was he wide open, he had no one near him, no one over the top, and had an angle to turn that short catch into a HUGE gain before a defender would even be able to engage him. This is the stuff a QB's dreams are made of. Luck simply missed him.
There are other examples of Luck missing Dorsett, getting pressured before Dorsett's long developing route is even complete, or the play calling sending Dorsett right into the teeth of the defense. And not just Dorsett; it hampers all of our receivers. And I'm not trying to make Dorsett out to be a victim. His drops last year hurt; he needs to tighten up his route running (though it's not as bad as some make it out to be); he seemed to fall down at times last year (Denver game?)... But he's not the problem with the offense.
And really, my point is not even to defend Dorsett, and I'm certainly not taking shots at Aiken. My point is that, until the offense is adjusted, I don't think it matters who we have at WR3, the offense isn't going to make good use of that player, by design.
Sorry for these long replies. This is my biggest pet peeve with this team, and you've gotten me started...
I largely agree with what you're saying in this part. But I'm more apt to believe that Dorsett's lack of productivity is more centered around his playing ability rather than the offensive system. And like you, I don't want to see him fail (especially given the pick they spent on him) but he hasn't proven it so far. Dorsett himself and the coaches have acknowledged this as well. Time will tell.
-
18 hours ago, Superman said:
Drop % isn't relevant to the discussion, given his lack of targets. He had 3 drops last year. That's not a lot. (I thought he had a drop in 2015, but I was wrong.)
Every receiver has plays where he doesn't get open.
He doesn't have a complete lack of productivity. He had over 500 yards last year.
Luck wouldn't have to go through reads if the offense featured hot routes or other designed concepts that promote high efficiency. Against certain defensive looks, there should be an automatic hot that put the ball in a receiver's hands in space. We have virtually none of those in this offense. Against other looks, there should be automatic checks to screens or smokes. Again, they run almost none. Yes, Luck locks on to his #1 more than he should, but that flaw is exacerbated by the lack of common sense concepts in the offense.
When I see stuff like this in multiple games, the issue is bigger than personnel.
Unless you're telling me that Luck would have thrown to Kamar Aiken in the same circumstance, then I don't think Aiken is going to be any better than Dorsett in this offense. And if you are telling me that Aiken would have gotten the ball here, then we might as well get rid of Dorsett right now, because if Luck doesn't trust him then he shouldn't be on the field. But I don't think that's it. I think it's a poorly designed offense, bottom line.
Late reply here.
Drop% IS relative. There's no reason to believe that his percentage of dropped passes would decrease if his targets were to increase.
Every WR does have play's where they don't get open but it appears to be more consistent with Dorsett.
Yardage is one of the most overrated stats in judging a WR's productivity. Having one reception for 50 yards on three targets doesn't constitute solid productivity even though the yardage stat gives the impression of a half-way decent performance.
I'm not excusing the offensive philosophy but you simply can't always get into the perfect play offensively. Even the Manning-era offenses wouldn't always be able to change into a play to match the defense even though that was part of its design. The play you showed me points out a Luck problem more than anything. If he isn't seeing an open WR right in front of him, then he has to get better at going through his reads and throwing it to him. And if it's because Luck doesn't trust him, then there must be reasoning behind it either in practice or what has materialized on the field.
The NFL Needs a Healthy Andrew Luck *Article*
in Colts Football
Posted
http://twoqbs.com/qb-profiles/nfl-needs-healthy-andrew-luck/
Article dives into just how good Luck is at a deeper level. Enjoy!