Week 1 Grades -- Colts vs Raiders

[Superman]

Just my thoughts. This was a game where we looked like we were going to dominate, and then it came crashing down. My theme:

 

 

Offense, C+: 53 plays, 274 yards, 18 first downs (2 from penalty), 6/10 on third down, 0/1 on fourth down, 2/2 in the red zone, zero turnovers, 21 points

 

QB: An efficient game throwing the ball, and he hurt the Raiders with his feet, including on the game-winning score. But he struggled making reads against the blitz, and got caught holding the ball a little too long a few times. Gotta go hot, especially when protections are breaking down. Was also slightly off on some passes, including a couple of completions where his receivers made great grabs (among those, a one-hander by Reggie, in traffic; if the ball had been out in front where it should have been, it might have been a catch and run for some extra yardage). But he also showed what makes him special, bouncing off of defenders to make plays, and coming through in the clutch. He's got to play quicker at certain times, but he also needs some help from his offensive line. B-

 

OL / blocking: Started out promising, but then started making mistakes, and began looking all too familiar to us Colts fans. The weak link was LT Castonzo, but everyone had a couple of issues over the course of the game. McGlynn played better than I expected, but still had his times when he was just overpowered or completely lost. The run game was productive, helped out by Havili and the tight ends, and some hard running throughout. Protections were sloppy, but the Raiders were sending extra men from all over the place, so some of that has to go on the QB and the coaching. Have to get better. C-

 

Backs / receivers/ tight ends: Kind of a simple grade here. Reggie Wayne was excellent, which, at this point, is kind of like saying "grass is green" or "water is wet." No drops in the passing game, but not a lot of separation downfield either. Some good blocking on QB scrambles, especially the game-winner. DHB played hard on several occasions, including taking the shot to the head and still stretching out for the first down. Hilton is obviously a threat to get behind the secondary, but couldn't hook up with Luck on a couple of deep shots. The backs fought hard, and I think they might have gotten a nice rhythm going if the offense had more opportunities. Ballard looks like twice the pass blocker he was as a rookie. The tight ends were used all over the field, but didn't make a lot of plays. Again, need more chances, and that's the overall theme for this unit. When your offense only logs around 50 plays, you're not going to have a ton of production from your skill guys. But they all played reasonably well. Certainly no big mistakes. B

 

Defense, C+: 63 plays, 372 yards, 20 first downs (1 from penalty), 7/13 on third down, 1/1 on fourth down, 2/3 in the red zone, two turnovers, 17 points (and a missed field goal)

 

Defensive front: This is a multi-layered grade, and the hardest one of the game. The run defense was outstanding against traditional run plays. Their backs had 50 yards on 19 carries, and one touchdown. Anyone who is critical of Erik Walden doesn't know what they're looking at, because he wasn't giving an inch against tight ends or tackles. We got decent pressure on the quarterback as well, flushing him from the pocket over and over again with penetration up the middle and edge rushes. Against a more traditional offense, this would be a great performance. But we were terrible at keeping Pryor contained, both on scrambles and designed QB keepers. He was able to use his legs to extend the play and find receivers downfield (not the fault of the coverage, by the way, which was mostly excellent), and he was able to scoot around the outside and dart up the middle past our linebackers. An extreme lack of discipline coupled with substandard athleticism (particularly from Kelvin Sheppard as a spy) led to Pryor averaging nearly 9 yards/carry on us. We crashed down too hard on zone reads and bootlegs, came too far up the field on dropbacks, and got plain outrun on draws. And then there were the missed tackles... Two words: film study. The discipline with which we played against their running backs has to carry over to mobile quarterbacks, otherwise we're going to get hurt, not only against read option teams, but also against bootleg/misdirection teams like the Texans. The problems are fixable, but critical. The stout run defense and consistent penetration is a saving grace with this grade. C-

 

Pass defense: I thought the coverage was mostly excellent. A couple of mistakes, like the big play to the tight end, and then Toler's technical mistake on the goalline for the go-ahead touchdown, but overall, we kept their receivers under wraps. We also closed quickly on backs when they caught balls underneath. Pryor scrambled to extend two or three plays, and no one can cover forever, so they got some big catches. But I thought the secondary played really well, led by Landry, who was all over the place. Bethea was feisty, but also was sloppy in some tackling situations. Davis missed a tackle and blew a coverage, but mostly kept his man off the stat sheet. Toler had the big pick in the first quarter, and was all over his man. I like his aggressive style of coverage. Butler did okay at nickel. Not a perfect game, but much improved from anything we've seen since 2007. Two turnovers is a nice start to the season. B+

 

Special teams, B: I almost forgot to grade this. Nothing really to talk about here. McAfee had an ugly punt in the first half, but the rest were okay. Hilton had the only return, and it was pretty good. The coverage was good.

 

Coaching / playcalling, C: Tricky. Started out on fire offensively. Those first two drives were excellent. And then the Raiders figured out how to pressure the QB, and all the success went away. We couldn't counter it for several reasons, but we've got to break tendencies quickly in the NFL. We don't just have superior talent, where we can just say "let's keep doing our thing, and eventually it will start to turn our way." This isn't the Pac-12; the NFL is about adjustments, and offensively, they never came. We used our base personnel in a lot of different formations, which I like, but I think we need to use 11 personnel a little more often, especially to slow down the corner blitzes. Hilton is a great weapon; use him. C-

 

On defense, we shut down the run, but let Pryor make up for it with his athleticism. Again, poor discipline, but that's partly coaching. And the adjustments didn't come until late in the game. Fortunately, I think we were more talented and experienced here, and that worked in our favor on the last drive. But the coaches have to stress this stuff in the film room and during the week in practice. We started spying Pryor, but Sheppard was just overmatched in the speed department, and I think maybe Freeman or a safety would have been a better call. And the six man rushes were ineffective, which is concerning. C

 

The game management was okay. Could have used some timeouts defensively on the touchdown drive in the second quarter, and on the touchdown drive in the fourth quarter, just to regroup and give our guys a breather. I like the fourth down attempt; I've been saying for a while that I think the numbers favor going for it on fourth and short from plus territory, when you're outside field goal range. A punt probably goes into the end zone (statistically speaking), and now you're net 23. If you can get 2 yards, you're staying on the field, especially when the offense is struggling to find a rhythm. I didn't like the sequence of play calling, but when you have a good QB, you should be able to gain 2 yards right there. B-

 

Game ball, offense: Reggie Wayne. 34 years old, 8 catches, 96 yards, 1 touchdown, $5.8m yearly average, great attitude. Mike Wallace, 27 years old, 1 catch, 15 yards, no touchdowns, $12m yearly average, bad attitude. So glad Reggie stayed.

 

Game ball, defense: LaRon Landry. First time we've had a defensive enforcer in a while. Feels good. He made his presence known about three plays in, and continued to do so all game long.

 

Next up, Miami Dolphins. Not as big of a threat from the QB, but he is mobile, and they do have some skill guys who can make plays. The defense can be nasty, too. 

[HtownColt]

Really loved what Redding and Ricky Jean Francios did in this game as well

[Legend of Luck]

Come on. You are seriously making me want to stop coming to this forum.

 

Yes, we could have played better, but 90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football after the play had broken down. You cannot seriously be sitting here talking as if the season is in major jeopardy. 

 

Our team is very good. Our D will be MUCH better as the year goes on, especially against more traditional qbs. The offense will get more opportunities and put up bigger numbers. 

 

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

[Gavin]

Excellent breakdown Superman. As to that 4th Down play on the Raiders 43 1/2, I thought there was 2 reasons more then anything else as to why it did not work.....1.Coby failed to get off his block well which appeared to be where Luck was headed (cant tell yet since All 22 is not available.....you know when it will be?) and 2. neither Luck nor Coby appeared to recognize the blitz. What I think should have been done in that situation was 1 of 2 things......1.Play power football and bulldoze our way for that yard or 2.Put Havili in an Offset Strong I  and flood the play side of the field, That would have forced 3 Linebackers on 2 TE's and a FB which would have potentially put Hunter in a retreat and chase mode

[BleedBlu8792]

Come on. You are seriously making me want to stop coming to this forum.

Yes, we could have played better, but 90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football after the play had broken down. You cannot seriously be sitting here talking as if the season is in major jeopardy.

Our team is very good. Our D will be MUCH better as the year goes on, especially against more traditional qbs. The offense will get more opportunities and put up bigger numbers.

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

Your middle two paragraphs have already been reiterated numerous times. None of the posters on this thread are worried about the rest of the season, however the Colts played sloppy for the better part of 2/3's of the game and I don't see how anyone can deny that.

[BleedBlu8792]

 

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

 

Hypochondria also has no relevance to how certain people feel about Sunday's game.

[SteelCityColt]

Come on. You are seriously making me want to stop coming to this forum.

 

Yes, we could have played better, but 90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football after the play had broken down. You cannot seriously be sitting here talking as if the season is in major jeopardy. 

 

Our team is very good. Our D will be MUCH better as the year goes on, especially against more traditional qbs. The offense will get more opportunities and put up bigger numbers. 

 

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

 

I'm struggling to see who this is aimed at? Superman's OP?

[SteelCityColt]

Just my thoughts. This was a game where we looked like we were going to dominate, and then it came crashing down. My theme:

 

 

 

A fair and balanced write up I felt, enjoyed reading it. When you look back maybe it wasn't as bad as I felt during the game, but for whatever reason I can't remember ever being so frustrated watching a Colts game. This includes 2011. 

[ruksak]

Come on. You are seriously making me want to stop coming to this forum.

 

Yes, we could have played better, but 90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football after the play had broken down. You cannot seriously be sitting here talking as if the season is in major jeopardy. 

 

Our team is very good. Our D will be MUCH better as the year goes on, especially against more traditional qbs. The offense will get more opportunities and put up bigger numbers. 

 

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

 

 

 

Fella, Superman gave a great breakdown, OBJECTIVELY. Direct, truthful and honest critique of game 1 as being lackluster in some areas .......doesn't reckon the season as a washout. 

 

We have plenty to be positive about, but don't pretend we're a shoe-in for a Lombo this year either. 

 

90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football

 

 

I gots news for ya.

 

Much of the league is going this direction, and it's not garbage. The league, after all these decades, is finally starting to catch up with the "mobile" (AKA Black) QB. Offenses never knew how to use them before, they rarely gave them a fair shot before, nor did they coach them to their strengths before. 

 

The standard drop-back passer isn't going away. But make room for the new school. Kaep is the perfect balance between a traditional drop-back QB and the mobile, zone/read option QB. More of his kind will follow. Pryor has poor skills as a passer ATM, and yes, much of what OAK gained on Sunday was kinda cheap. But the gains exposed the Colts as having issues setting the edge, recognizing and dealing with the zone/read option.

[ColtsFreak]

Great post.  

[TMPHBITEU]

I like these write-ups from you, Superman.

Looking forward to reading these every week (hopefully).

[Nadine]

No game ball for Antoine Bethea?

[OffensivelyPC]

Thought your grading on Luck was a bit harsh.  I mean, for all the talk about how his efficiency must improve, you don't get more efficient than (at the time, I think it was) 11/11 and like 120 yards with 2 TDs.  Yeah we had a lull in the second-third, but I put that more on play calling than anything.  Oh and the most important stat - 5/6 for 61 yards on third down, 4 of which were converted to 1st downs and he converted 2 more on scrambles.

 

I'm quickly becoming opposed to the 22 personnel that we use.  As a change of pace or goalline, it's fine.  But with the 22 personnel, everything is so bunched, including the defenders.  It's more difficult for the OL, RB or the QB to make reads.  Spreading the defense out gives everyone a chance to make those reads, not to mention get your playmakers out in space.  Ballard and to a lesser extent, Bradshaw, aren't the speed burner types to outrun the defense, so putting 8 or 9 guys in the box doesn't help our running game.  It might get us the 4 yard average, which if that's the goal, then great, it worked last week.  I hesitate to say we'll average 4 yards in the 22 personnel against SF or SEA.

[OffensivelyPC]

 

Much of the league is going this direction, and it's not garbage. The league, after all these decades, is finally starting to catch up with the "mobile" (AKA Black) QB. Offenses never knew how to use them before, they rarely gave them a fair shot before, nor did they coach them to their strengths before. 

 

I'm not a fan of it and my personal opinion is that it is garbage.  I think it is gimmicky.  That being said, I still accept and acknowledge that I gotta deal with it.  To me, it's like watching people play madden.  You got a guy like Pryor who runs a 4.38 just dancing around everywhere until someone finally gets open or there's a running lane that Fat Ba**ard could get through.  No lineman or LB is going to be that fast and the secondary can't cover forever.  You really have to ask for perfect pass rush to have a chance at stopping him from running around back there, and that's unrealistic.  I'm not excusing our defense.  We've still got to play more disciplined.  We just do. If this offense isn't going away (and I don't think it is any time soon, anyway), our defense is far from where it needs to be.

[Danfish98]

Good write up!  Overall I think I was more impressed with the offense and less impressed with the defense, especially the coverage, than you.  I like that you're putting some of the sack blame on Luck.  The line still needs work, but when a team is blitzing like the Raiders were in the third quarter the QB has to make adjustments to compensate.  Very few olines are going to hold up against blitzing like that.  Other than those issues the offense was great.  21 points on 7 possessions is usually going to win the game as with the average number of possessions in a game you're looking at 30+ points for the game.  

 

On defense I liked how the traditional run defense looked and that's about it.  Obviously there were major issues containing Pryor when he ran.  I also thought we were leaving receivers open all over the place.  A lot of people seemed happy with Toler's coverage but I just don't see it.  He looked great in preseason so i'm hopeful for future games but I was very disappointed in his coverage on Sunday.  Have to generate more pass rush as well.  My optimistic side says maybe the biggest problem was how tired the front 7 was from chasing Pryor all over the field but I'm afraid the pass rush is going to be a big issue all season.  

[indy1888]

Excellent breakdown Superman. As to that 4th Down play on the Raiders 43 1/2, I thought there was 2 reasons more then anything else as to why it did not work.....1.Coby failed to get off his block well which appeared to be where Luck was headed (cant tell yet since All 22 is not available.....you know when it will be?) and 2. neither Luck nor Coby appeared to recognize the blitz. What I think should have been done in that situation was 1 of 2 things......1.Play power football and bulldoze our way for that yard or 2.Put Havili in an Offset Strong I  and flood the play side of the field, That would have forced 3 Linebackers on 2 TE's and a FB which would have potentially put Hunter in a retreat and chase mode

 

Based on what i seen at the game, there is no doubt that Fleener was the target on the play. But he could not get open, as is often the case. I would have to see the tape to even see if there was another option on the play.  At the game, it was so obvious they were going for Fleener that he was the only one i concentrated on and as i soon as i seen him get blanketed i knew we were in trouble. I did not like the play call at all.  If were going to throw on 4th down i would prefer one of our worst options on the whole team not be the main target of the play.

[Superman]

Really loved what Redding and Ricky Jean Francios did in this game as well

I thought the whole defensive line played well. Just didn't want to keep prattling on. This could be twice as long, trust me.

[Superman]

Come on. You are seriously making me want to stop coming to this forum.

Yes, we could have played better, but 90% of the raiders success came on garbage "backyard" style football after the play had broken down. You cannot seriously be sitting here talking as if the season is in major jeopardy.

Our team is very good. Our D will be MUCH better as the year goes on, especially against more traditional qbs. The offense will get more opportunities and put up bigger numbers.

And all of you hypochondriacs will be back here talking playoffs again next week when we are 2-0 and our whole team looks better.

I'm confused. I am not claiming our season is over, just acknowledging that we didn't play well over the entire course of the game. Lots of mistakes in every aspect. Call it first game sloppiness or whatever, but it has to be improved on.

[Superman]

Thought your grading on Luck was a bit harsh. I mean, for all the talk about how his efficiency must improve, you don't get more efficient than (at the time, I think it was) 11/11 and like 120 yards with 2 TDs. Yeah we had a lull in the second-third, but I put that more on play calling than anything. Oh and the most important stat - 5/6 for 61 yards on third down, 4 of which were converted to 1st downs and he converted 2 more on scrambles.

I'm quickly becoming opposed to the 22 personnel that we use. As a change of pace or goalline, it's fine. But with the 22 personnel, everything is so bunched, including the defenders. It's more difficult for the OL, RB or the QB to make reads. Spreading the defense out gives everyone a chance to make those reads, not to mention get your playmakers out in space. Ballard and to a lesser extent, Bradshaw, aren't the speed burner types to outrun the defense, so putting 8 or 9 guys in the box doesn't help our running game. It might get us the 4 yard average, which if that's the goal, then great, it worked last week. I hesitate to say we'll average 4 yards in the 22 personnel against SF or SEA.

I gave Luck a B-. I'm critical because he was overwhelmed by the blitzes, and off target on some throws. I love the efficiency and the toughness, but there's a lot he could have done better to keep the offense moving.

I agree with you about 22 personnel. I don't think it should be our base package either.

[Superman]

No game ball for Antoine Bethea?

He was first runner up. I just felt like Landry was the standout performer, and his energy set the tone.

[Warhorse]

Just my thoughts. This was a game where we looked like we were going to dominate, and then it came crashing down.

 

Superb write up, and I respect your opinion. I love Luck and I see his unwillingness at times to give up on the play as the only real transition he has to overcome. Accuracy on throws and such will improve with just a half to a full second more time in the pocket. Part of the gripe on o line play is the lines fault....part is his.

 

The new scheme on D will be an up and down experience until they have faced all the different looks the leagues offenses have to offer. I am quite thankful that we got the lesson we did Sunday. A healthy win of the type that many fans were hoping for would have not provided the great film for this defense to study on mobile QB's in a broken play environment.

[SteelCityColt]

He was first runner up. I just felt like Landry was the standout performer, and his energy set the tone.

Can't argue there, Bethea was good but dirty 30 seemed to be everywhere.

[Legend of Luck]

I'm struggling to see who this is aimed at? Superman's OP?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fella, Superman gave a great breakdown, OBJECTIVELY. Direct, truthful and honest critique of game 1 as being lackluster in some areas .......doesn't reckon the season as a washout. 

 

We have plenty to be positive about, but don't pretend we're a shoe-in for a Lombo this year either. 

 

I gots news for ya.

 

Much of the league is going this direction, and it's not garbage. The league, after all these decades, is finally starting to catch up with the "mobile" (AKA Black) QB. Offenses never knew how to use them before, they rarely gave them a fair shot before, nor did they coach them to their strengths before. 

 

The standard drop-back passer isn't going away. But make room for the new school. Kaep is the perfect balance between a traditional drop-back QB and the mobile, zone/read option QB. More of his kind will follow. Pryor has poor skills as a passer ATM, and yes, much of what OAK gained on Sunday was kinda cheap. But the gains exposed the Colts as having issues setting the edge, recognizing and dealing with the zone/read option.

 

 

 

I'm confused. I am not claiming our season is over, just acknowledging that we didn't play well over the entire course of the game. Lots of mistakes in every aspect. Call it first game sloppiness or whatever, but it has to be improved on.

 

I apologize if my post was confusing. I wasnt directing my post at Superman, it was more of just a culmination of things. I had been on the forum and other Colts sites for most of the day, and it seems like all I see is negativity.

 

"Our O line sucks. We have no pass rush. Our play calling sucks." It just got on my last nerves and I felt like I needed to say something. Perhaps I chose poorly doing it in this thread, (which is why I started a different one) so I apologize again for that, but I really think we are over thinking a lot of sundays game. There were a lot of positives to take away as well. I just dont want people hitting the panic button after one game that we WON.

 

Again, I apologize for the confusion. I really enjoyed your write-up, (even if I think it was very harsh), and Im looking forward to reading more in the season.   

[SteelCityColt]

I apologize if my post was confusing. I wasnt directing my post at Superman, it was more of just a culmination of things. I had been on the forum and other Colts sites for most of the day, and it seems like all I see is negativity.

"Our O line sucks. We have no pass rush. Our play calling sucks." It just got on my last nerves and I felt like I needed to say something. Perhaps I chose poorly doing it in this thread, (which is why I started a different one) so I apologize again for that, but I really think we are over thinking a lot of sundays game. There were a lot of positives to take away as well. I just dont want people hitting the panic button after one game that we WON.

Again, I apologize for the confusion. I really enjoyed your write-up, (even if I think it was very harsh), and Im looking forward to reading more in the season.

Hey no problem, it did make me re read the OP a fair few times to check I wasn't missing something!

[Drewbacca]

Jets scored 48 points in week one last year...

 

So, with that being said, week one isn't exactly a precursor for the upcoming season.

[Superman]

I apologize if my post was confusing. I wasnt directing my post at Superman, it was more of just a culmination of things. I had been on the forum and other Colts sites for most of the day, and it seems like all I see is negativity.

 

"Our O line sucks. We have no pass rush. Our play calling sucks." It just got on my last nerves and I felt like I needed to say something. Perhaps I chose poorly doing it in this thread, (which is why I started a different one) so I apologize again for that, but I really think we are over thinking a lot of sundays game. There were a lot of positives to take away as well. I just dont want people hitting the panic button after one game that we WON.

 

Again, I apologize for the confusion. I really enjoyed your write-up, (even if I think it was very harsh), and Im looking forward to reading more in the season.   

 

Cool deal. I'm not gonna claim that I'm the beacon of objectivity around here, as if everyone else is entirely lacking and I'm somehow above it all. But I try to be fair in my grading. I don't think the game was a complete dumpster fire, like so many others do, and you're right, all the "fire him" or "why do we suck so much" threads are ... taxing, to say the least. My grades are just based on my observations: What did we do well, what didn't we do well, what can we improve on, what was out of our control... and so on.

[BigQandTheManiac]

people tend to forget that PRYOR did good not the raiders...it was a one man show...i think other then the read..our D did good...2 INTs..a sack...and just 17 points....thats good...but like i always say...i think we need to score more points mann.....its like that's the team's theme score 21-28 points a game...thats not good...hopefully when they get T.Y. involved more they will...i think if he would have played half of the oakland game it wouldn't have been that close we would have had 28 points or something to 17

[Dark Superman]

Just my thoughts. This was a game where we looked like we were going to dominate, and then it came crashing down. My theme:

 

 

Offense, C+: 53 plays, 274 yards, 18 first downs (2 from penalty), 6/10 on third down, 0/1 on fourth down, 2/2 in the red zone, zero turnovers, 21 points

 

QB: An efficient game throwing the ball, and he hurt the Raiders with his feet, including on the game-winning score. But he struggled making reads against the blitz, and got caught holding the ball a little too long a few times. Gotta go hot, especially when protections are breaking down. Was also slightly off on some passes, including a couple of completions where his receivers made great grabs (among those, a one-hander by Reggie, in traffic; if the ball had been out in front where it should have been, it might have been a catch and run for some extra yardage). But he also showed what makes him special, bouncing off of defenders to make plays, and coming through in the clutch. He's got to play quicker at certain times, but he also needs some help from his offensive line. B-

 

OL / blocking: Started out promising, but then started making mistakes, and began looking all too familiar to us Colts fans. The weak link was LT Castonzo, but everyone had a couple of issues over the course of the game. McGlynn played better than I expected, but still had his times when he was just overpowered or completely lost. The run game was productive, helped out by Havili and the tight ends, and some hard running throughout. Protections were sloppy, but the Raiders were sending extra men from all over the place, so some of that has to go on the QB and the coaching. Have to get better. C-

 

Backs / receivers/ tight ends: Kind of a simple grade here. Reggie Wayne was excellent, which, at this point, is kind of like saying "grass is green" or "water is wet." No drops in the passing game, but not a lot of separation downfield either. Some good blocking on QB scrambles, especially the game-winner. DHB played hard on several occasions, including taking the shot to the head and still stretching out for the first down. Hilton is obviously a threat to get behind the secondary, but couldn't hook up with Luck on a couple of deep shots. The backs fought hard, and I think they might have gotten a nice rhythm going if the offense had more opportunities. Ballard looks like twice the pass blocker he was as a rookie. The tight ends were used all over the field, but didn't make a lot of plays. Again, need more chances, and that's the overall theme for this unit. When your offense only logs around 50 plays, you're not going to have a ton of production from your skill guys. But they all played reasonably well. Certainly no big mistakes. B

 

Defense, C+: 63 plays, 372 yards, 20 first downs (1 from penalty), 7/13 on third down, 1/1 on fourth down, 2/3 in the red zone, two turnovers, 17 points (and a missed field goal)

 

Defensive front: This is a multi-layered grade, and the hardest one of the game. The run defense was outstanding against traditional run plays. Their backs had 50 yards on 19 carries, and one touchdown. Anyone who is critical of Erik Walden doesn't know what they're looking at, because he wasn't giving an inch against tight ends or tackles. We got decent pressure on the quarterback as well, flushing him from the pocket over and over again with penetration up the middle and edge rushes. Against a more traditional offense, this would be a great performance. But we were terrible at keeping Pryor contained, both on scrambles and designed QB keepers. He was able to use his legs to extend the play and find receivers downfield (not the fault of the coverage, by the way, which was mostly excellent), and he was able to scoot around the outside and dart up the middle past our linebackers. An extreme lack of discipline coupled with substandard athleticism (particularly from Kelvin Sheppard as a spy) led to Pryor averaging nearly 9 yards/carry on us. We crashed down too hard on zone reads and bootlegs, came too far up the field on dropbacks, and got plain outrun on draws. And then there were the missed tackles... Two words: film study. The discipline with which we played against their running backs has to carry over to mobile quarterbacks, otherwise we're going to get hurt, not only against read option teams, but also against bootleg/misdirection teams like the Texans. The problems are fixable, but critical. The stout run defense and consistent penetration is a saving grace with this grade. C-

 

Pass defense: I thought the coverage was mostly excellent. A couple of mistakes, like the big play to the tight end, and then Toler's technical mistake on the goalline for the go-ahead touchdown, but overall, we kept their receivers under wraps. We also closed quickly on backs when they caught balls underneath. Pryor scrambled to extend two or three plays, and no one can cover forever, so they got some big catches. But I thought the secondary played really well, led by Landry, who was all over the place. Bethea was feisty, but also was sloppy in some tackling situations. Davis missed a tackle and blew a coverage, but mostly kept his man off the stat sheet. Toler had the big pick in the first quarter, and was all over his man. I like his aggressive style of coverage. Butler did okay at nickel. Not a perfect game, but much improved from anything we've seen since 2007. Two turnovers is a nice start to the season. B+

 

Special teams, B: I almost forgot to grade this. Nothing really to talk about here. McAfee had an ugly punt in the first half, but the rest were okay. Hilton had the only return, and it was pretty good. The coverage was good.

 

Coaching / playcalling, C: Tricky. Started out on fire offensively. Those first two drives were excellent. And then the Raiders figured out how to pressure the QB, and all the success went away. We couldn't counter it for several reasons, but we've got to break tendencies quickly in the NFL. We don't just have superior talent, where we can just say "let's keep doing our thing, and eventually it will start to turn our way." This isn't the Pac-12; the NFL is about adjustments, and offensively, they never came. We used our base personnel in a lot of different formations, which I like, but I think we need to use 11 personnel a little more often, especially to slow down the corner blitzes. Hilton is a great weapon; use him. C-

 

On defense, we shut down the run, but let Pryor make up for it with his athleticism. Again, poor discipline, but that's partly coaching. And the adjustments didn't come until late in the game. Fortunately, I think we were more talented and experienced here, and that worked in our favor on the last drive. But the coaches have to stress this stuff in the film room and during the week in practice. We started spying Pryor, but Sheppard was just overmatched in the speed department, and I think maybe Freeman or a safety would have been a better call. And the six man rushes were ineffective, which is concerning. C

 

The game management was okay. Could have used some timeouts defensively on the touchdown drive in the second quarter, and on the touchdown drive in the fourth quarter, just to regroup and give our guys a breather. I like the fourth down attempt; I've been saying for a while that I think the numbers favor going for it on fourth and short from plus territory, when you're outside field goal range. A punt probably goes into the end zone (statistically speaking), and now you're net 23. If you can get 2 yards, you're staying on the field, especially when the offense is struggling to find a rhythm. I didn't like the sequence of play calling, but when you have a good QB, you should be able to gain 2 yards right there. B-

 

Game ball, offense: Reggie Wayne. 34 years old, 8 catches, 96 yards, 1 touchdown, $5.8m yearly average, great attitude. Mike Wallace, 27 years old, 1 catch, 15 yards, no touchdowns, $12m yearly average, bad attitude. So glad Reggie stayed.

 

Game ball, defense: LaRon Landry. First time we've had a defensive enforcer in a while. Feels good. He made his presence known about three plays in, and continued to do so all game long.

 

Next up, Miami Dolphins. Not as big of a threat from the QB, but he is mobile, and they do have some skill guys who can make plays. The defense can be nasty, too.

Remember the days when we had #18 and when teams blitzed he would make them pay heavily?

Those were the days..

[Legend of Luck]

Remember the days when we had #18 and when teams blitzed he would make them pay heavily?

Those were the days..

 

Luck had over a 138% passer rating against the blitz.....so.....yea....THESE are the days.

[Dark Superman]

Luck had over a 138% passer rating against the blitz.....so.....yea....THESE are the days.

Luck is solid..

But Peyton had teams on their heels.. He had them virtually afraid to blitz him.

He was a master of the Blitz in Indianapolis..

[Legend of Luck]

Luck is solid..

But Peyton had teams on their heels.. He had them virtually afraid to blitz him.

He was a master of the Blitz in Indianapolis..

Its game one of year 2. Peyton didnt demand that type of attention until wellll past that point in his career. Give him time dude, GIVE HIM TIME.

[dgambill]

Thought your grading on Luck was a bit harsh.  I mean, for all the talk about how his efficiency must improve, you don't get more efficient than (at the time, I think it was) 11/11 and like 120 yards with 2 TDs.  Yeah we had a lull in the second-third, but I put that more on play calling than anything.  Oh and the most important stat - 5/6 for 61 yards on third down, 4 of which were converted to 1st downs and he converted 2 more on scrambles.

 

I'm quickly becoming opposed to the 22 personnel that we use.  As a change of pace or goalline, it's fine.  But with the 22 personnel, everything is so bunched, including the defenders.  It's more difficult for the OL, RB or the QB to make reads.  Spreading the defense out gives everyone a chance to make those reads, not to mention get your playmakers out in space.  Ballard and to a lesser extent, Bradshaw, aren't the speed burner types to outrun the defense, so putting 8 or 9 guys in the box doesn't help our running game.  It might get us the 4 yard average, which if that's the goal, then great, it worked last week.  I hesitate to say we'll average 4 yards in the 22 personnel against SF or SEA.

I agree with the 22 personnel. You better be damn dominant with that kinda formation...smash mouth...pound the d-fense with the run and wear them out ala SF does with their offset lines etc. I just don't think our guys are that good. Combine that with allowing the defense to fill the box and then disguise their blitz...makes it very hard. Especially when Fleener is just plain out not getting open. For someone with his size and speed he just doesn't play fast or athletic....that will be a problem if he doesn't make improvements. I'm hoping he will but you never know. That said it does often give your number 1 room on the outside but your qb has to read things...and have time to throw. What good is max protect if you can't block? Hoping for some new wrinkles....improved blocking...and better reads. Its early...we were fortunate Oak gave us that win...kinda like we got a few last year...so we just have to improve and move on.

[Gavin]

Based on what i seen at the game, there is no doubt that Fleener was the target on the play. But he could not get open, as is often the case. I would have to see the tape to even see if there was another option on the play.  At the game, it was so obvious they were going for Fleener that he was the only one i concentrated on and as i soon as i seen him get blanketed i knew we were in trouble. I did not like the play call at all.  If were going to throw on 4th down i would prefer one of our worst options on the whole team not be the main target of the play.

The thing is Coby is not one of our worst options on the team from an athletic stand point, if ya get him in the open field like that he wont be easy to bring down.

[Superman]

Luck had over a 138% passer rating against the blitz.....so.....yea....THESE are the days.

 

Passer rating doesn't account for snaps where the quarterback doesn't get a pass off. Luck took several sacks and had to run on other occasions because of the blitz. Nothing wrong with running, but the sacks were partly a product of poor protection, partly a product of Luck missing the hot man. The first sack in particular, he was looking downfield, and there was an open receiver to the short right.

 

I think the point was that Manning would beat the blitz by going hot, and it got to the point where teams didn't want to blitz and would consistently drop 7 into coverage. A few years there, we were the least blitzed team in the league. 

 

I personally don't care how we beat the blitz, I just think we've got to do better than we did against the Raiders.

[Dark Superman]

Its game one of year 2. Peyton didnt demand that type of attention until wellll past that point in his career. Give him time dude, GIVE HIM TIME.

I'll give him another week and my patience is up!

That was total sarcasm..

[indy1888]

The thing is Coby is not one of our worst options on the team from an athletic stand point, if ya get him in the open field like that he wont be easy to bring down.

 

From a receiving standpoint, Fleener has to be near the bottom of the barrel at this point of all the regulars.  On a 4th down play, he would not be my first, and possibly only option on the play. I think they were hoping they would simply fool the defense but it didn't work.

[Gavin]

From a receiving standpoint, Fleener has to be near the bottom of the barrel at this point of all the regulars.  On a 4th down play, he would not be my first, and possibly only option on the play. I think they were hoping they would simply fool the defense but it didn't work.

No he certainly would not be my 1st option and no way would he be my only option but if he gets off his block better it would have helped

[Legend of Luck]

Passer rating doesn't account for snaps where the quarterback doesn't get a pass off. Luck took several sacks and had to run on other occasions because of the blitz. Nothing wrong with running, but the sacks were partly a product of poor protection, partly a product of Luck missing the hot man. The first sack in particular, he was looking downfield, and there was an open receiver to the short right.

 

I think the point was that Manning would beat the blitz by going hot, and it got to the point where teams didn't want to blitz and would consistently drop 7 into coverage. A few years there, we were the least blitzed team in the league. 

 

I personally don't care how we beat the blitz, I just think we've got to do better than we did against the Raiders.

 

I see. I totally agree. Luck will get better as he develops and learns. And hopefully our O line will get better as well.

[throwing BBZ]

Good write up!  Overall I think I was more impressed with the offense and less impressed with the defense, especially the coverage, than you.  I like that you're putting some of the sack blame on Luck.  The line still needs work, but when a team is blitzing like the Raiders were in the third quarter the QB has to make adjustments to compensate.  Very few olines are going to hold up against blitzing like that.  Other than those issues the offense was great.  21 points on 7 possessions is usually going to win the game as with the average number of possessions in a game you're looking at 30+ points for the game.  

 

On defense I liked how the traditional run defense looked and that's about it.  Obviously there were major issues containing Pryor when he ran.  I also thought we were leaving receivers open all over the place.  A lot of people seemed happy with Toler's coverage but I just don't see it.  He looked great in preseason so i'm hopeful for future games but I was very disappointed in his coverage on Sunday.  Have to generate more pass rush as well.  My optimistic side says maybe the biggest problem was how tired the front 7 was from chasing Pryor all over the field but I'm afraid the pass rush is going to be a big issue all season.  

 

Andrew missed throwing underneath to lots of open receivers last season.

A weakness in his game at this time. I don`t see this Brilliant Mind.

If he doesn`t show it by week 4 in the 2nd half... !

 

Actually I don`t expect we will have everyone up to a high level Before the 2nd half of - Next Season.

 

 

Superman, great analysys. Oaks receivers were pretty open on some of those extended plays so I would go with a B- on the secondary. Pryor played well. Thumbs up to the Raiders coaches, not so much to ours.

Now back to some ol' style FB.