Will the Colts ever have that NASTY dominant defense?

[Goodtimes]

I for one was stoked when Chuck was hired with visions of aggression and pain for opposing offenses. Chuck fueled the fire with talk of becoming bigger, more physical and being aggressive on defense. For years teams feared the Colts because of Peyton and the offense. (like they do in Denver now) Spread them out no huddle and pick them apart. With the new offensive scheme of a 50/50 ratio run to quick short passes (1 wr downfield on occasion) and a 50/50 split in carries among the rbs balance seems to be in order even though we have a franchise qb and speed receivers. Last I checked Luck was still getting hit but hey our run avg is up. Now on to our defense (got off track with a quick rant) it starts with the players and the scheme. We will never have a feared defense unless we get guys with nasty streaks on the field. Guys who play downfield with bad intentions. Landry fits that mold and we haven't had that since Bob left. Thought we would see more of those type of players via FA especially since our dc tends to run a more passive base 3-4 scheme which didn't sit well in his previous stops. One can only keep dreaming that one day FEAR will be attached to our defense.

 

You have a chance to have that defense this year and next. When Luck's contract comes up and they are forced to shell out $100 million for him (which I would not do unless he gets a lot better), they will not have the money to spend on defense. Just like in the Peyton years.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Superman

[Jason_]

It would take an epic collapse on defense this season for Manusky to be let go after Year 2. I don't see it happening unless the Colts just get lit up and/or have defensive breakdowns in the majority of their games this season (like the 1st half of the Phins game). Even if Manusky is let go, not sure how crazy I would be about Rex Ryan being on our sideline in any capacity.

 

Edit: Not to mention-- our head coach's specialty is supposed to be defense. If he can't work with Manusky and fix this without having to hire outside help I would be concerned.

 

I don't think it would have anything to do with bringing in outside help.  It would be more about Pagano not having to take on playcalling.  I would imagine the defense being installed is the defense that Pagano wants to run.  The biggest question right now seems to be about the situational playcalling of Manusky.  If Pagano is unhappy with the way Manusky calls a game then he can either bring in someone else to do it or take on playcalling himself. I'm not sure how well it would go over though if Pagano simply took over calling the plays with Manusky still on staff.  I could see that causing some...issues.  

[Superman]

You have a chance to have that defense this year and next. When Luck's contract comes up and they are forced to shell out $100 million for him (which I would not do unless he gets a lot better), they will not have the money to spend on defense. Just like in the Peyton years.

 

You gotta throw that little Luck jab in whenever you can, huh?

[Superman]

I don't think it would have anything to do with bringing in outside help.  It would be more about Pagano not having to take on playcalling.  I would imagine the defense being installed is the defense that Pagano wants to run.  The biggest question right now seems to be about the situational playcalling of Manusky.  If Pagano is unhappy with the way Manusky calls a game then he can either bring in someone else to do it or take on playcalling himself. I'm not sure how well it would go over though if Pagano simply took over calling the plays with Manusky still on staff.  I could see that causing some...issues.  

 

Thing is, that's always been the knock on Manusky, situational playcalling. I was optimistic that it would be better with Pagano, but it really hasn't been. Of course, they've only got seven real games together, so far. 

[Jason_]

Thing is, that's always been the knock on Manusky, situational playcalling. I was optimistic that it would be better with Pagano, but it really hasn't been. Of course, they've only got seven real games together, so far. 

 

Right, and I agree.  I said that in another thread..or maybe earlier in this thread, I don't remember. lol  I had read the same things about Manusky right after he was hired, and my hope was that he was going to help install the defense, teach technique etc but that Pagano would take on playcalling himself.  Obviously that hasn't been the case.

 

Plus we all remember that Manusky was clearly not their first choice.  There was that premature announcement of Keith Butler being hired as the DC.  Unfortunately he signed an extension with Pittsburgh instead.  So there's no telling if Manusky was their 2nd, 3rd or who knows what choice but he's the guy they wound up with.  For that reason I wouldn't be overly surprised if he was let go at the end of the season if they aren't happy with his playcalling.  

 

Rex may try to hold out for a HC job before settling on a DC job, or even do like Lovie Smith and just take a year off.  Who knows.  I definitely wouldn't mind him here as DC though.  However another option would be someone from his current Jets' staff if the Jets decide to do a clean sweep.  If that's the case, their DC Dennis Thurman would also be available.  He also came from that Ravens' defensive tree.  Someone else I'd maybe take a look at is Ken Flajole.  He's currently on Ray Horton's staff as ILB's coach in Cleveland and has prior experience as DC.  Getting ahead of myself here though cause no one's been fired yet.

[Superman]

Right, and I agree.  I said that in another thread..or maybe earlier in this thread, I don't remember. lol  I had read the same things about Manusky right after he was hired, and my hope was that he was going to help install the defense, teach technique etc but that Pagano would take on playcalling himself.  Obviously that hasn't been the case.

 

Plus we all remember that Manusky was clearly not their first choice.  There was that premature announcement of Keith Butler being hired as the DC.  Unfortunately he signed an extension with Pittsburgh instead.  So there's no telling if Manusky was their 2nd, 3rd or who knows what choice but he's the guy they wound up with.  For that reason I wouldn't be overly surprised if he was let go at the end of the season if they aren't happy with his playcalling.  

 

Rex may try to hold out for a HC job before settling on a DC job, or even do like Lovie Smith and just take a year off.  Who knows.  I definitely wouldn't mind him here as DC though.  However another option would be someone from his current Jets' staff if the Jets decide to do a clean sweep.  If that's the case, their DC Dennis Thurman would also be available.  He also came from that Ravens' defensive tree.  Someone else I'd maybe take a look at is Ken Flajole.  He's currently on Ray Horton's staff as ILB's coach in Cleveland and has prior experience as DC.  Getting ahead of myself here though cause no one's been fired yet.

 

All good thoughts, especially the Keith Butler deal. I wince when I think about that.

 

I'm not a fan of having the head coach calling plays, personally. A perfect example of why is the "spot of the ball" challenge on Sunday. If Pagano was responsible for getting the next play dialed up, his attention would have been divided, and he may not have thrown the flag. I think the head coach should focus on game management, big picture adjustments, and things like that. There are plenty of good play callers who can handle a defense. 

[RomanianColtsFan]

I believe that for the time being in the NFL there is no more "nasty" defense, just look around. There are some good defenses but nothing like Bears 1985, Ravens 2000 or Tampa 2002.

 

What I want from the Colts is to have a well coached defense that plays good fundamental football and it doesn't rely on boom or bust plays. I would like to see every player be connected to the game the whole time and master the technique for his position. The defense has to be at least just above the NFL average.  That combined with a top 5 offense, which is a must giving the good quality QB they have is in my opinion a formula for success.

[bluephantom87]

I for one was stoked when Chuck was hired with visions of aggression and pain for opposing offenses. Chuck fueled the fire with talk of becoming bigger, more physical and being aggressive on defense. For years teams feared the Colts because of Peyton and the offense. (like they do in Denver now) Spread them out no huddle and pick them apart. With the new offensive scheme of a 50/50 ratio run to quick short passes (1 wr downfield on occasion) and a 50/50 split in carries among the rbs balance seems to be in order even though we have a franchise qb and speed receivers. Last I checked Luck was still getting hit but hey our run avg is up. Now on to our defense (got off track with a quick rant) it starts with the players and the scheme. We will never have a feared defense unless we get guys with nasty streaks on the field. Guys who play downfield with bad intentions. Landry fits that mold and we haven't had that since Bob left. Thought we would see more of those type of players via FA especially since our dc tends to run a more passive base 3-4 scheme which didn't sit well in his previous stops. One can only keep dreaming that one day FEAR will be attached to our defense.

I know it takes time to build but even in FA it seemed like they went after safe SOLID players instead of the nasty physical guys with the exception of Landry. Even our 1st pick Werner is raw with speed and has potential to be good but his knock was that he played soft at times lacking that mean streak on the field.

 

We dont have the defensive line talent to have a great defense..

 

In the first two weeks (forget the 5 sacks Sunday), a close look at the first two games indicates  we have not stopped either QB.

We cant get to him when we need to and we have given up key yardage..

I think our defensive perimiter is strong but, after 2 weeks...our line seems slow and lacks the push up the middle.

 

But its only been 2 weeks

Agree and we haven't played the superior teams yet. Sometimes you CAN recognize potential problems early but that doesn't mean you're doom or gloom. Take Manusky as dc. He's lost his job a couple of times but does that mean he'll be subpar with the Colts? No...but if he shows the SAME tendencies here (a more "vanilla" 3-4 scheme lacking consistent pressure or agressive playcalling) I don't think he should get 2 or 3yrs to see if he's ok or not.

[Iancolts]

I think the defense can't be built in year 2 we have good db and the Dline still doesn't have a dominate NT that pagano needs

[No 1 Manning Fan]

Not until we get a better d-coordinator, Rex Ryan should be available next year.

I like the way you think.

[coltfaninnewyork]

Been a colt fan back to the baltimore days.Thats a long time and have never had a dominant nasty defense.

[Jason_]

All good thoughts, especially the Keith Butler deal. I wince when I think about that.

 

I'm not a fan of having the head coach calling plays, personally. A perfect example of why is the "spot of the ball" challenge on Sunday. If Pagano was responsible for getting the next play dialed up, his attention would have been divided, and he may not have thrown the flag. I think the head coach should focus on game management, big picture adjustments, and things like that. There are plenty of good play callers who can handle a defense. 

 

Yeah me too.  I was very excited about the possibilities when that was announced.   Some kind of evil spawn combination of the Ravens' and Steelers' defense here in Indy?  OH yeah I was ready for that! lol   Then the deflating news that he signed the extension and instead we got Manusky.  

[Dudley Smith]

I don't think it would have anything to do with bringing in outside help.  It would be more about Pagano not having to take on playcalling.  I would imagine the defense being installed is the defense that Pagano wants to run.  The biggest question right now seems to be about the situational playcalling of Manusky.  If Pagano is unhappy with the way Manusky calls a game then he can either bring in someone else to do it or take on playcalling himself. I'm not sure how well it would go over though if Pagano simply took over calling the plays with Manusky still on staff.  I could see that causing some...issues.  

 

I agree with you for the most part. Just to clarify, when I said "outside help" I meant for that to mean firing Manusky and bringing in a new DC. I would hope that Pagano, being considered a great defensive mind, would be able to make this defense good enough on his own so that it wouldn't come to that. I understand that to a certain extent that isn't his job because he is the head coach and not the DC, but you would expect him to be fairly hands on with the side of the ball he used to coach and be a major asset there. I do agree that it could cause issues if he was to suddenly divest Manusky of play-calling duties while Manusky was still on the staff. But, if it is the difference between winning games or losing, it may have to be done.

 

Like you said in another post, Manusky was not the 1st choice of the Colts for the DC position. That said, it would take a terrible showing on the defense's part for him to be let go-- my ultimate point being if it came to that, I would be worried how effective Pagano was too.

[Jason_]

I agree with you for the most part. Just to clarify, when I said "outside help" I meant for that to mean firing Manusky and bringing in a new DC. I would hope that Pagano, being considered a great defensive mind, would be able to make this defense good enough on his own so that it wouldn't come to that. I understand that to a certain extent that isn't his job because he is the head coach and not the DC, but you would expect him to be fairly hands on with the side of the ball he used to coach and be a major asset there. I do agree that it could cause issues if he was to suddenly divest Manusky of play-calling duties while Manusky was still on the staff. But, if it is the difference between winning games or losing, it may have to be done.

 

Like you said in another post, Manusky was not the 1st choice of the Colts for the DC position. That said, it would take a terrible showing on the defense's part for him to be let go-- my ultimate point being if it came to that, I would be worried how effective Pagano was too.

 

But that's the connection that I'm not getting.  If Manusky were to be fired I think it would almost exclusively be because of his playcalling because, as you said and I said in an earlier post, this is ultimately Pagano's defense.  Manusky is simply helping him to install it, but more importantly, Manusky is also the designated playcaller.  Sure, Pagano could take on playcalling duties but would they want him to take it on long-term, or would he even want to take it on longterm with having to manage the entire game as Superman said?  Even if they did, every team has a both an OC and a DC even if the HC calls the plays.  So if Manusky were to be fired, he would need to be replaced for the simple fact that the team wouldn't have a DC anymore and there's no need to put that additional responsibility on Pagano when a new DC can be hired.  

 

So I get and agree with pretty much everything else you said.  I'm just not making the connection that if Manusky were to be fired, then having to bring in another DC would put question on Pagano's abilities or effectiveness.  

[Dudley Smith]

But that's the connection that I'm not getting.  If Manusky were to be fired I think it would almost exclusively be because of his playcalling because, as you said and I said in an earlier post, this is ultimately Pagano's defense.  Manusky is simply helping him to install it, but more importantly, Manusky is also the designated playcaller.  Sure, Pagano could take on playcalling duties but would they want him to take it on long-term, or would he even want to take it on longterm with having to manage the entire game as Superman said?  Even if they did, every team has a both an OC and a DC even if the HC calls the plays.  So if Manusky were to be fired, he would need to be replaced for the simple fact that the team wouldn't have a DC anymore and there's no need to put that additional responsibility on Pagano when a new DC can be hired.  

 

So I get and agree with pretty much everything else you said.  I'm just not making the connection that if Manusky were to be fired, then having to bring in another DC would put question on Pagano's abilities or effectiveness.  

 

I guess the assumption is being made that play-calling is the biggest issue. I confess I don't know for a fact if the play-calling is the biggest issue or it has to do with the scheme itself. If it is schematic, that is something I am hoping that Pagano could fix on his own without having to get a new DC. If it is schematic and the only solution is to fire Manusky to fix it, I would question Pagano's effectiveness. However, if it is play-calling that is the major issue with our defense (of which I am not sure that it is, nor am I saying that it isn't--I simply don't know) and it is not schematic, then getting a new DC who calls the right plays makes sense in order to let Pagano stick to HC duties during the game.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[Warhorse]

I that was what they wanted, at the expense of all else...yes. But thank goodness they are trying to build a balanced team.

[Jason_]

I guess the assumption is being made that play-calling is the biggest issue. I confess I don't know for a fact if the play-calling is the biggest issue or it has to do with the scheme itself. If it is schematic, that is something I am hoping that Pagano could fix on his own without having to get a new DC. If it is schematic and the only solution is to fire Manusky to fix it, I would question Pagano's effectiveness. However, if it is play-calling that is the major issue with our defense (of which I am not sure that it is, nor am I saying that it isn't--I simply don't know) and it is not schematic, then getting a new DC who calls the right plays makes sense in order to let Pagano stick to HC duties during the game.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Ok gotcha, yeah that makes sense.  As of now, as far as I know, people are only questioning the playcalling, not the defensive scheme.  Manusky's playcalling turned rather vanilla at some key times in both the Raiders and Dolphins games.  Hopefully Pagano can work with Manusky to make sure Manusky has the right idea of the how Pagano would like the game to be called, but as a couple have said (in this and/or a different thread) the biggest knock on Manusky in previous jobs was overly conservative playcalling at inopportune times, and that's basically what we're seeing here as well.

[BleedBlu8792]

Why not? Del Rio went from head coach of Jags to DC for the Broncos.

 

Plus Norv left San Diego head coach to be OC of Browns.

 

Oh I agree.. But when it comes to ego, that's a whole different story. I would really hope he considers it, because I DO believe we have the playmakers on defense for Rex to make us THAT good. Again, look at the Jets, across the board I don't believe they are really any better than us, BUT he has them playing very well. I bet he would LOVE to have our secondary as well, especially having Landry back.

 

Like I stated before the draft, Rex made a very mediocre front 7 look very good because he knew he could create enough pressure with his blitz packages, while also knowing his secondary could hold up as well. I believe our front 7, now, is better than anything he's had in the past couple of years. On top of that I think our secondary is more than capable of holding up, if put into better position, to help the front 7 do serious damage. Rex is very creative when it comes to scheming with what he has, however Manusky is not and its showing. This secondary should not have given up 300+ yards to Tannehill.

[Goodtimes]

You gotta throw that little Luck jab in whenever you can, huh?

 

That isn't a jab at Luck. That is fact with any franchise QB. It will be the same for Wilson, RGIII, Tannehill, Cam Newton and others. I should have just said QB to make you happy.