Press your Luck (9-8-13) Oakland

[braveheartcolt]

I'm too scared to make a prediction in case my guess is ridiculed and our season is officially doomed. Does anyone remember when we beat the Browns something like 9-6 with Manning? I'd dread to think of the ridicule of anyone who suggested such a score line.

We can be a harsh bunch sometimes.

21-34 1TD 0 INT 54 Rush yds. Flagellate me.

[SolomonThomasFanAccount]

24-30 ,5 tds , 1 rushing touchdown , 50 yards

[irishboy]

30-35, 4 touchdowns, 321 yards, 1 rushing touchdown 25 yards

[UKColtfanHS]

25/32 350 yds 3 TDs and he rushes for 20 yards

[CroatianColtsFan21]

18-24, 275 yards, 3 tds, 0 int, 1 fumble (courtesy of our OL) ;)

[SteelCityColt]

luck 28 of 30 for 350 yards 4 tds 0 ints and a perfect 158.3 rating.

 

Welcome back Stephen

[AntonMcG]

If he throws 48 times, we've FAILED as an offense

The point was to eliminate the Bruce Arians stats

 

You really have to stop saying that, because it is entirely circumstantial.

 

There are many scenarios where we could throw a lot... you attack a defense's weaknesses, if that is the secondary, or the pass rush, then you throw the ball, if the LB's can't cover, you hit the slot guys and TEs all day. A lot of the throws could be dump-offs or screens to the RB that are as safe as run plays. If you are playing hurry-up offense, you could be throwing and running a lot for short gains. And, finally, it is completely subject to situation, if you are chasing a game, you have to throw.

 

People need to stop thinking a stat line is anything more than a small indication of the overall story.

[CroatianColtsFan21]

If he throws 48 times, we've FAILED as an offense

The point was to eliminate the Bruce Arians stats

 

 

You really have to stop saying that, because it is entirely circumstantial.

 

There are many scenarios where we could throw a lot... you attack a defense's weaknesses, if that is the secondary, or the pass rush, then you throw the ball, if the LB's can't cover, you hit the slot guys and TEs all day. A lot of the throws could be dump-offs or screens to the RB that are as safe as run plays. If you are playing hurry-up offense, you could be throwing and running a lot for short gains. And, finally, it is completely subject to situation, if you are chasing a game, you have to throw.

 

People need to stop thinking a stat line is anything more than a small indication of the overall story.

 

it is circumstantial, but we're talking about the raiders game, so there are only 2 scenarios where luck throws that much:

 

no.1: we completely fail to run the ball -> we failed as an offense (all that talk about "power run team"),

 

or as you said;

 

no.2: we are chasing the score -> we failed as a defense (or special teams, or offensive turnovers, ...).

 

anyways, if that happens against the raiders, i think it's safe to say we failed..

[UKColt13]

25/34 4TDs 1INT

Oakland's secondary haven't looked good this season, kind of reminded me of our secondary circa 2011.

Bradshaw and Ballard will combine for over 100 Yds.

[braveheartcolt]

it is circumstantial, but we're talking about the raiders game, so there are only 2 scenarios where luck throws that much:

 

no.1: we completely fail to run the ball -> we failed as an offense (all that talk about "power run team"),

 

or as you said;

 

no.2: we are chasing the score -> we failed as a defense (or special teams, or offensive turnovers, ...).

 

anyways, if that happens against the raiders, i think it's safe to say we failed..

It does not matter who the opposition is, you make the plays that win you the game. If we throw a lot, and win comfortably, that is so far from a failure that I cannot explain.

[MakeItWayne]

24/31 276 yards 2 TDs 1 INT 0 rush yards

[HungarianColtsFan]

21- 35 280 2td 1int

 

run for 130 yds

 

 

 

I would be happy if only one of our RBs would be close to 100 yds, not Andrew...

[ell_chrisso]

26/34 293 yards 3TDs 1 pick

[pgt_rob]

23/34. 232 yds. 2 TDs. 1 INT. 2 rushes for 18 yds.

[AntonMcG]

it is circumstantial, but we're talking about the raiders game, so there are only 2 scenarios where luck throws that much:

 

no.1: we completely fail to run the ball -> we failed as an offense (all that talk about "power run team"),

 

or as you said;

 

no.2: we are chasing the score -> we failed as a defense (or special teams, or offensive turnovers, ...).

 

anyways, if that happens against the raiders, i think it's safe to say we failed..

 

Ugh... the problem is people do not interpret this intended offensive philosophy correctly. This team will always be a passing team, even if they run the ball more than they pass it. The running game is not meant to beat teams, it is meant to set up the pass and control the clock. The more productive we are whilst running, the more it opens up the passing game, and produces results from play-action, as well as keeping the pass rush at bay.

 

This is what the running game is, and will always be for us. Now if the Raiders do not get consistent, or any pressure, and the they load up the box, then we will pass all day, because the main benefits of the running game become obsolete. We will run to finish off the game, but that is it.

 

48 passes may seem too much, but it is an issue with people understanding the philisophy... we would not fail if we threw the ball a lot and were effective, because this offense is built to exploit weaknesses in defenses. One week we may see 50 runs plays and 30 pass plays, the next week we may see 50 pass plays and 25 runs plays. It is completely circumstantial.

[coltsfanatic24]

22-30 255 yards 4TD's 1INT

 

Ballard will run for over 100 yards

 

DHB 6 catches 80 yards 2TDs vs his former team

[Le Neon]

25/20 

 

Ugh... the problem is people do not interpret this intended offensive philosophy correctly. This team will always be a passing team, even if they run the ball more than they pass it. The running game is not meant to beat teams, it is meant to set up the pass and control the clock. The more productive we are whilst running, the more it opens up the passing game, and produces results from play-action, as well as keeping the pass rush at bay.

 

This is what the running game is, and will always be for us. Now if the Raiders do not get consistent, or any pressure, and the they load up the box, then we will pass all day, because the main benefits of the running game become obsolete. We will run to finish off the game, but that is it.

 

48 passes may seem too much, but it is an issue with people understanding the philisophy... we would not fail if we threw the ball a lot and were effective, because this offense is built to exploit weaknesses in defenses. One week we may see 50 runs plays and 30 pass plays, the next week we may see 50 pass plays and 25 runs plays. It is completely circumstantial.

 

Plus many of our short passes are basically runs anyway.  Short high percentage passes to get guys like Hilton and DHB in space to make plays, screens to our RBs etc.

[AntonMcG]

25/20 

 

 

Plus many of our short passes are basically runs anyway.  Short high percentage passes to get guys like Hilton and DHB in space to make plays, screens to our RBs etc.

 

Let's not forget those shorter passes often mean less yards, and thus more plays.

[Valpo2004]

I'm gonna go with 18/30 - 225 yards 2 TD's - 0 Int's  2 Rushes for 24 yards

 

I don't think Luck is gonna see a ton of action in terms of being forced to make big time throws.  Raiders won't be much of an offensive threat so once we build a decent lead we're probably gonna coast and run the ball a lot more to drain clock.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Hasselback under center in the 4th quarter due to garbage time.  (Not due to injury)

[oldunclemark]

really, failed in game one of a brand new offense. i think you may be exaggerating a tad

 

I think Andrew liked Bruce Arians offense..I know I did...

 

Change the plays and air it out, Andrew!!!

[oldunclemark]

30-35, 4 touchdowns, 321 yards, 1 rushing touchdown 25 yards

solid,  Irishboy.....very Tommy Rees-like

[oldunclemark]

Throwing 48 times is a failure based on what Pep wants to do. I don't see Luck throwing more than 42 times in that game

Not if that's what the defense gives you..and you need it. 

 

What if 30 throws are to backs and tight ends...

[TKnight24]

Not if that's what the defense gives you..and you need it.

What if 30 throws are to backs and tight ends...

If we can't run the ball against the raiders, we're in trouble come Seattle & San Fran

I look for this game to be a test run. Try to establish some fire power. And since we should have the lead going into the 4th quarter, we gotta run the ball and kill the clock. That's really when Pep's "run heavy" mindset should come into play if we're winning big heading into the 4th

[oldunclemark]

If we can't run the ball against the raiders, we're in trouble come Seattle & San Fran

I look for this game to be a test run. Try to establish some fire power. And since we should have the lead going into the 4th quarter, we gotta run the ball and kill the clock. That's really when Pep's "run heavy" mindset should come into play if we're winning big heading into the 4th

Cant argue with any of that...and I would if I could!!!!  You know that!!

[Dark Superman]

25-32 375 4 TDs no picks.

[Holden89]

I'll say 21/34 260 yards, 2 TDs 1 int

[sblank21]

 

... we would not fail if we threw the ball a lot and were effective, because this offense is built to exploit weaknesses in defenses.

Isn't every offense built to exploit weaknesses in defenses?  With different game plans weekly to take advantage of your mismatches?  (Unless, of course, you are the Oakland Raiders or Jacksonville Jaguars)

[AntonMcG]

Isn't every offense built to exploit weaknesses in defenses?  With different game plans weekly to take advantage of your mismatches?  (Unless, of course, you are the Oakland Raiders or Jacksonville Jaguars)

 

Yes of course, but to varying degrees, as not all offenses are versatile enough.

 

So we should not see the same stats every week from our team... that would often mean we are becoming one-dimensional.

[Warhorse]

23 of 28 for 262 yards and 2 TD's.  21 yards rushing

[Franklin County]

28/36  315 yds   3 TDs 0int  38yds rushing   27-9 Colts Defense holds them to 3 fgs.

[sblank21]

Yes of course, but to varying degrees, as not all offenses are versatile enough.

 

So we should not see the same stats every week from our team... that would often mean we are becoming one-dimensional.

I see your point - With that being said, I'd happily accept 350 yards in the air and 150 on the ground every week from the Colts.  I realize I'm dreaming, but if they put up those stats every week, good things are happening.

[oldunclemark]

They do have Tyvon Branch, Charles Woodson, DJ Hayden, Mike Jenkins, and Tracy Porter in that secondary. That's not a bad group by any means

that's the AARP all-stars

[oldunclemark]

If we can't run the ball against the raiders, we're in trouble come Seattle & San Fran

I look for this game to be a test run. Try to establish some fire power. And since we should have the lead going into the 4th quarter, we gotta run the ball and kill the clock. That's really when Pep's "run heavy" mindset should come into play if we're winning big heading into the 4th

Lets live for today...

 

Lets not worry

 

'bout tomorrow

 

Hey Hey.

[Andy]

Andrew Luck: 23-32 / 274 yards / 2 TDs 0 INTs

 

2 rushes for 17 yards 

[HtownColt]

that's the AARP all-stars

Every body in that secondary is 28 or younger but Woodson but ok if the shoe fits