Why do we want to take the ball out of Luck's hands

[K-148]

Because Colts don't want to take the ball out of Luck's dead hands.

[HungarianColtsFan]

Just two issues from ESPN:

 

"Catching the ball
Richardson's 58 receptions since the start of his rookie year in 2012 are tied for the fifth-most by a running back during that time.

Colts' running backs have caught the fewest passes in the NFL over that same time.

Richardson has 418 receiving yards since the start of the 2012 season, more than Donald Brown and Ahmad Bradshaw combined (364).

Pass Protection
Since the start of 2012 with Richardson on the field, Browns quarterbacks were sacked on 4.8 percent of dropbacks. With Richardson off the field, Browns quarterbacks were sacked on 9.4 percent of dropbacks."

 

the full article is here:

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/73115/colts-fill-specific-needs-with-richardson

 

 

Are we taking the ball out of Andrew's hands?

[crazycolt1]

What-what happens is, the-the-the center has-has the ball first. And-and-and the quarterback will say, "Hike." That's when the c-center puts the ball in-into the hands of the quarterback. So what I do is, I-I start tacklin' the quarterback, unless he give the ball to-to s-somebody else, in which case, I-I try to tackle that person.

Is this really a comment? What is your point? 

[tfunky14]

Trent Richardson is better than Jadeveon Clowney? I think TRich for our first rounder next year is worth it at almost any draft position, but not better than Clowney.

Colts are not getting Clowney, he will go to the Jags or Raiders

[amfootball]

What does that have to do with teams being able to run the ball ? The Pats could run the ball pretty well in those SB wnning years It's when they were pass happy that they failed

 

 We didn't have the right combination of O linemen and RB's to run the ball and take pressure of Luck. Donald Brown is a reserve at best and Bradshaw is very brittle and probably could never carry a big load. So with Luck , a little bit of an improved O line and a powerful fast RB , Grigson feels we can now run the ball. I just don't see where his thinking is so flawed.

In '01 and '03 the Pats did not have a great run game. Smith gave them 1,100 yards in '01 or about 68 yards a game. In 2003 he had 600 yards as the wheels came off. But the larger point here I think is how much the game has changed since then. The Pats were unique in that they had a very effective short to mid-range passing game with a QB that played within that frame work with extreme patience. I think in today's league with the new defensive rules, you have to pass but a run game is key to keeping your QB healthy. A run game also tires the defense more.

[pgt_rob]

What's wrong with having a good run game? We all know Luck is great and a true passing threat, that's why we need a threat running game. Sounds good to me!

[YOUR GM]

The front office is making moves to win right now, yet we still have people who are complaining. 

 

No, what the front office is doing is panicking. They are not making championship moves right now. Trent Richardson makes us no closer to winning a championship this year, especially considering who he'll be running behind. I would've preferred a move for Mack or Joe Thomas rather than Trent Richardson, if we're just tossing around high draft picks for players. Our backs were fine, and was not the primary issue with the offense. The O-line is, and always has been the weak link, and our "O-line" GM chooses to ignore it. Now we're stuck with McGlynn starting for us for at least the rest of the season. 

[chad72]

I think what the front office is realizing is that our OL trades are going to be hard to find at this point in the season. Most teams know that skill position players, you can plug and play but OL, you cannot just plug and play with someone who does not know the playbook or has not been with the team in TC. That is what folks are not getting.

 

So, with Bradshaw with screws in his foot, DB a free agent at the end of this year and Ballard coming off IR next season, they needed a true power back for early downs for a few years. With rookie contracts, we can run Trent to the ground the next 3 years and may not even re-sign him or extend him. I know it sounds harsh but that is the nature of business for RBs in this league. You are better off drafted in round 2 or later as an RB in this league.

 

Now, Trent will not see 8 or 9 man boxes, thanks to Luck. It makes Luck more efficient, like we have always wanted him to be. He won't have the volume of a 300 yards per game but he will have someone that will make opponents respect the running game. We ran against a decent front 7 in Miami and ran pretty well, so OL while being a work in progress, is going to get better with chemistry and continuity. It by no means takes the ball away from Luck, it allows us to run with just 5 OL and 1 FB & 1 TE or 2 TEs and not need extra OLs and can keep 2 WRs on the field all the time.

[BadLuck]

 

 

 

    We have a premier QB.

 

That is where you are wrong. He is a liability that needs help. Turnover machine. Bad accuracy. He's like a deer in headlights while in the pocket. Holds onto the ball way too long. He is the white Jason Campbell. Our Colts won him some games last year that he wrongly got all the credit for.

[AntonMcG]

In '01 and '03 the Pats did not have a great run game. Smith gave them 1,100 yards in '01 or about 68 yards a game. In 2003 he had 600 yards as the wheels came off. But the larger point here I think is how much the game has changed since then. The Pats were unique in that they had a very effective short to mid-range passing game with a QB that played within that frame work with extreme patience. I think in today's league with the new defensive rules, you have to pass but a run game is key to keeping your QB healthy. A run game also tires the defense more.

 

Here she goes again...

 

The Patriots had 1800 yards rushing in 2001 and over 1600 in 2003, both over 100 yard average per game.

 

In the playoffs they were even more efficient at running in both seasons with 133 yards in the 2001 SB vs. the Rams and 127 yards in the 2003 SB vs. the Panthers.

 

You trying to blindly attribute a team's rushing success to one player is misleading, as expected.

 

They had an effective running game that they were committed to, which contributed greatly to their success. They may not have had big YPA averages, but they were very effective in short yardage situations.

[jamesie jr]

Did you see the LT that came in for Okung?   His name is Carpenter and he is better than ANY OL INDY has. 

 

Seattle INVESTS IN it's OL.    Indy is investing in players that are TOTALLY dependent on the OL.

 

I got news for you kids...  Trent R is a NICE player... but he DOES NOT change the needle win wise.

 

I'd of given up 2 first rounders for Joe Thomas..       but Jimmy doesn't have a clue.

Tackle isn't the problem for running the ball imo. The problem is the interior linemen. Thomas would be good but if we were doing that i'd say that for someone like Jahri Evans or Carl Nicks imo.

[jamesie jr]

In '01 and '03 the Pats did not have a great run game. Smith gave them 1,100 yards in '01 or about 68 yards a game. In 2003 he had 600 yards as the wheels came off. But the larger point here I think is how much the game has changed since then. The Pats were unique in that they had a very effective short to mid-range passing game with a QB that played within that frame work with extreme patience. I think in today's league with the new defensive rules, you have to pass but a run game is key to keeping your QB healthy. A run game also tires the defense more.

Agree with you completely there.

[House]

That is where you are wrong. He is a liability that needs help. Turnover machine. Bad accuracy. He's like a deer in headlights while in the pocket. Holds onto the ball way too long. He is the white Jason Campbell. Our Colts won him some games last year that he wrongly got all the credit for.

And the wheels have officially fallen off.

[amfootball]

Here she goes again...

 

The Patriots had 1800 yards rushing in 2001 and over 1600 in 2003, both over 100 yard average per game.

 

In the playoffs they were even more efficient at running in both seasons with 133 yards in the 2001 SB vs. the Rams and 127 yards in the 2003 SB vs. the Panthers.

 

You trying to blindly attribute a team's rushing success to one player is misleading, as expected.

 

They had an effective running game that they were committed to, which contributed greatly to their success. They may not have had big YPA averages, but they were very effective in short yardage situations.

The Pats did not have 1800 yards in 2001. Smith had just over 1,100; Faulk had 169; Edwards had 141. Does not add up to 1,800. And yet again, you are missing the larger point. None of the Pats RBs were superstars until they got Dillon in 2004. The run game was good not great. They relied heavily on the short passing game as a type of run game whether they threw to Faulk out of the back fied or Brown in the slot. That was their offense. But more important to that was their defense which is a style of D that teams can no longer play so really the entire point is moot. Teams have to score more now to be competitive because it is a passing league. That is why the Pats morphed into a passing attack in 2007.

[BadLuck]

And the wheels have officially fallen off.

 

Hows that 78 career QB rating? Not elite. Not even close. Very Blaine Gabbert like.

[JoKeR]

We seem obcessed with running the ball....

...We gave up year's No.1 (which hopefully wont be a high pick) for ANOTHER running back

We didn't even give Bradhsaw a full shot as the starter (obviously we didn't bring in TR to come off the bench)

We have a premier QB. I don't want to be a running team.

..and Im worried that our defensive coach....our conservative OC and our O-lineman GM believe in a philosophy that went out in the 80s

That running the ball and defense can win consistently..and you don't want to throw 30 times.

Im worried that we'd spend a No,.1 on a RB when we need O-line and D-line help

Every time you take the ball out of Andrew Luck';s hands, you are doing the opposition favor

to effectively pass the ball you must be able to run the ball

People are DRUNK off of a 11 win season. This team is NOT good enough to be tossing 1st round picks away like candy.

Patience... people.. JIM TWEETY in particular.

I still like the trade.. Think it was a good move.. TRich is going to be a good back for us especially since he has a capable QB who doesn't allow the D to stack 8 in the box play after play.. TRich and Luck will feed off each other and benefit from being back there together

I can't say any of you are wrong.

[AntonMcG]

The Pats did not have 1800 yards in 2001. Smith had just over 1,100; Faulk had 169; Edwards had 141. Does not add up to 1,800. And yet again, you are missing the larger point. None of the Pats RBs were superstars until they got Dillon in 2004. The run game was good not great. They relied heavily on the short passing game as a type of run game whether they threw to Faulk out of the back fied or Brown in the slot. That was their offense. But more important to that was their defense which is a style of D that teams can no longer play so really the entire point is moot. Teams have to score more now to be competitive because it is a passing league. That is why the Pats morphed into a passing attack in 2007.

 

They ran for 1793 to be exact, so please do your research on your own team. They ran the ball very effectively, especially in short yardage, they picked up over 100 first downs in 2001 by rushing, and similiar numbers in 2003. You certainly do not need a great running back to have a great running game anymore, no one argued that, the Pats proved that last year, however it does no harm.

 

I am missing no larger point, I simply called you yet again on your inaccuracies. The run game is of course there to compliment the passing game as opposed to being the focal point, and it is hugely important for moving the chains. As the Patriots used it in both '01 and '03.

[amfootball]

They ran for 1793 to be exact, so please do your research on your own team. They ran the ball very effectively, especially in short yardage, they picked up over 100 first downs in 2001 by rushing, and similiar numbers in 2003. You certainly do not need a great running back to have a great running game anymore, no one argued that, the Pats proved that last year, however it does no harm.

 

I am missing no larger point, I simply called you yet again on your inaccuracies. The run game is of course there to compliment the passing game as opposed to being the focal point, and it is hugely important for moving the chains. As the Patriots used it in both '01 and '03.

We are back to this again....

 

We are making the same point. The difference here which you seem to be missing is that the Pats did not have a Richardson RB. Their best rusher ran for 68 yards a game on average. I doubt Colts fans would be very happy with that from Trent. In addition, the Pats had the short pass game as a type of run game along with a formidable D which again the Colts don't have. The comparison is dubious at best especially when you add in the rule changes.

[JoKeR]

Hows that 78 career QB rating? Not elite. Not even close. Very Blaine Gabbert like.

I was going to retort but then remembered not to feed you.

[Warhawk]

Running helps you pass, passing helps you run.

 

Andrew Luck, statistically, is most effective when he's using play action.

 

When you see a guy like Luck moving to hand off to a guy like Richardson, whichever way it goes, if you guess wrong, you're screwed.

[tfunky14]

No, what the front office is doing is panicking. They are not making championship moves right now. Trent Richardson makes us no closer to winning a championship this year, especially considering who he'll be running behind. I would've preferred a move for Mack or Joe Thomas rather than Trent Richardson, if we're just tossing around high draft picks for players. Our backs were fine, and was not the primary issue with the offense. The O-line is, and always has been the weak link, and our "O-line" GM chooses to ignore it. Now we're stuck with McGlynn starting for us for at least the rest of the season. 

"Are backs are fine", are you serious? D. Brown has been subpar at best and Bradshaw is coming off a foot injury (see MJD)

[AntonMcG]

We are back to this again....

 

We are making the same point. The difference here which you seem to be missing is that the Pats did not have a Richardson RB. Their best rusher ran for 68 yards a game on average. I doubt Colts fans would be very happy with that from Trent. In addition, the Pats had the short pass game as a type of run game along with a formidable D which again the Colts don't have. The comparison is dubious at best especially when you add in the rule changes.

 

I know we are making (somewhat) the same point, the difference lies in your inaccurate belief that the Patriots were not a great running team in '01 and '03 when in fact they proved to be hugely effective and opened up the passing game. The never used the running game that way most teams used it at that time, it was never the focal point. They used it for moving the chains, checkdown passes and play-action, much like the Colts will do now, the Patriots were ahead of their time in that respect. The principals of the passing game have changed, which puts less emphasis on the running game, but the Patriots never made the running game the emphasis in '01 or '03, or indeed '12. So whilst the running game has changed, the Patriots philisophy on the running game has remained largely the same, which I expect the Colts to emulate.

 

You point about the Pats best runner getting 68 yards per game is irrelevant, it doesn't matter who gives you the yards, the Patriots as a team got the yards. The Colts as a team could not get those yards, but perhaps can now, with the addition of Richardson.

[amfootball]

I know we are making (somewhat) the same point, the difference lies in your inaccurate belief that the Patriots were not a great running team in '01 and '03 when in fact they proved to be hugely effective and opened up the passing game. The never used the running game that way most teams used it at that time, it was never the focal point. They used it for moving the chains, checkdown passes and play-action, much like the Colts will do now, the Patriots were ahead of their time in that respect. The principals of the passing game have changed, which puts less emphasis on the running game, but the Patriots never made the running game the emphasis in '01 or '03, or indeed '12. So whilst the running game has changed, the Patriots philisophy on the running game has remained largely the same, which I expect the Colts to emulate.

 

You point about the Pats best runner getting 68 yards per game is irrelevant, it doesn't matter who gives you the yards, the Patriots as a team got the yards. The Colts as a team could not get those yards, but perhaps can now, with the addition of Richardson.

This move from the Colts is the exact opposite of what teams like the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, or Broncos would ever do. To give up a first round pick for a RB who has mixed reviews at best? Never. I get why the Colts did it to some extent but this is a huge risk on their part on a position that is not only the most injury prone but generally one where you can find really good talent in the later rounds of the draft. Still, even though I don't like it, I like the boldness of the GM. Not sure Polian would have ever done this.

[AntonMcG]

This move from the Colts is the exact opposite of what teams like the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, or Broncos would ever do. To give up a first round pick for a RB who has mixed reviews at best? Never. I get why the Colts did it to some extent but this is a huge risk on their part on a position that is not only the most injury prone but generally one where you can find really good talent in the later rounds of the draft. Still, even though I don't like it, I like the boldness of the GM. Not sure Polian would have ever done this.

 

Did I argue any of that? You are creating arguments that don't exist to ignore that ones you don't want to address.

 

I simply like proving you wrong.

[amfootball]

Did I argue any of that? You are creating arguments that don't exist to ignore that ones you don't want to address.

 

I simply like proving you wrong.

lol. We were making the same points. :yay:

 

 I just addressed the move by the Colts as being very opposite of what the Pats would do. Do you disagree?

[Blackclouds]

I agree with amfootball, this move reeks of desperation. How is this team going to be a run first team with that Oline? I'm sure Colts management is thinking that if they slow the game down and run a ball control offense that will turn the tide. Good luck with that when the defense can't even get off the field. Getting Trent doesn't even help in the short term in winning some games. For sure going to lose the next one, and the panic will set in even deeper. 

[shevz]

there is no guarantee next yrs pick will turn into #1 pick.. I can guarantee Trent R. is worth #1 pick though.

Not to mention that we would probably have a late 1st round pick, our team is not good but is not bad

From last years draft we would not get any real good OL value since all of them are being taken real soon

[House]

Hows that 78 career QB rating? Not elite. Not even close. Very Blaine Gabbert like.

Lol yeah. Best way to convince people your not crazy? Keep acting crazy.

[AntonMcG]

lol. We were making the same points. :yay:

 

 I just addressed the move by the Colts as being very opposite of what the Pats would do. Do you disagree?

 

Of course not, few, if any GMs in the league would make a move like this, it is career russian roulette.

 

I am not going to pretend to know whether this move will work or not, too many ifs and maybes. It is one of them wait and see scenarios. However, it is refreshing to follow a team that puts so much stock in improving. When you look at the Browns, Jags, Raiders etc. you feel for their incompetance and lack of ambition in the Front Office.

[OffensivelyPC]

We seem obcessed with running the ball....

 

...We gave up year's No.1 (which hopefully wont be a high pick) for ANOTHER running back

 

We didn't even give Bradhsaw a full shot as the starter (obviously we didn't bring in TR to come off the bench)

 

 

    We have a premier QB. I don't want to be a running team.

 

..and Im worried that our defensive coach....our conservative OC and our O-lineman GM believe in a philosophy that went out in the 80s

 

That running the ball and defense can win consistently..and you don't want to throw 30 times.

 

 

    Im worried that we'd spend a No,.1 on a RB when we need O-line and D-line help

 

Every time you take the ball out of Andrew Luck';s hands, you are doing the opposition favor

While I don't really like our 1 WR set, the simple fact of the matter is, having that marquee RB that can take pressure off the QB is a necessity.  I mean think about it, what would the 49ers be without Frank Gore?  Last year's Ravens without Rice?  Seahawks without Lynch?  Last year's Redskins without Morris?  Bucs without Martin?  Texans without Foster? 

 

Yeah a big part of that is on the OL.  And while we criticize our OL on a regular basis, we put up 4.3YPC against a stout Miami DL/LB core.  It's not really as bad as everyone suggests.  Yeah we took a hit with Thomas' injury, but it's still a good OL. 

[AntonMcG]

While I don't really like our 1 WR set, the simple fact of the matter is, having that marquee RB that can take pressure off the QB is a necessity.  I mean think about it, what would the 49ers be without Frank Gore?  Last year's Ravens without Rice?  Seahawks without Lynch?  Last year's Redskins without Morris?  Bucs without Martin?  Texans without Foster? 

 

Yeah a big part of that is on the OL.  And while we criticize our OL on a regular basis, we put up 4.3YPC against a stout Miami DL/LB core.  It's not really as bad as everyone suggests.  Yeah we took a hit with Thomas' injury, but it's still a good OL. 

 

Run-blocking this year has been good. Pass blocking, and in particular, interior pass-blocking, has been abysmal. The threat of play-action may help resolve this.

[OffensivelyPC]

Run-blocking this year has been good. Pass blocking, and in particular, interior pass-blocking, has been abysmal. The threat of play-action may help resolve this.

This is true for the most part, but has shown some good signs as well.  Still not consistent, but in the first half of last weeks game, we had given up 1 sack and 1 hit on the QB.  The biggest issue is picking up on blitzes, which a big part of that is on the RB.  Not excusing the OL by any means, pass protection has to get better, but I've seen enough to think that it can improve and give consistenly better protection.  It's still a fairly young OL core.

[AntonMcG]

This is true for the most part, but has shown some good signs as well.  Still not consistent, but in the first half of last weeks game, we had given up 1 sack and 1 hit on the QB.  The biggest issue is picking up on blitzes, which a big part of that is on the RB.  Not excusing the OL by any means, pass protection has to get better, but I've seen enough to think that it can improve and give consistenly better protection.  It's still a fairly young OL core.

 

I agree that blitzing was the main issue, however some of that responsibility has to fall on the interior of the line. They may be containing their men, but they were still allowing the pocket to open up which means blitzers get free runs at the QB. They need to learn to hold their ground better, at times it seems Satele is doing the same thing when run blocking and pass blocking, i.e. just push his man out of the way and opening up the pocket.

[BlueShoe]

Is this really a comment? What is your point? 

 

Waterboy quote. Watch a movie dude.

[Goodtimes]

We seem obcessed with running the ball....

 

...We gave up year's No.1 (which hopefully wont be a high pick) for ANOTHER running back

 

We didn't even give Bradhsaw a full shot as the starter (obviously we didn't bring in TR to come off the bench)

 

 

    We have a premier QB. I don't want to be a running team.

 

..and Im worried that our defensive coach....our conservative OC and our O-lineman GM believe in a philosophy that went out in the 80s

 

That running the ball and defense can win consistently..and you don't want to throw 30 times.

 

 

    Im worried that we'd spend a No,.1 on a RB when we need O-line and D-line help

 

Every time you take the ball out of Andrew Luck';s hands, you are doing the opposition favor

 

You might help him survive and avoid a serious injury with a decent running game. If he continues to be all of the Colts offense, he is going to see more and more blitzes and receive more and more punishment. The result of all that is inevitable.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Superman

[BlueShoe]

No, what the front office is doing is panicking. They are not making championship moves right now. Trent Richardson makes us no closer to winning a championship this year, especially considering who he'll be running behind. I would've preferred a move for Mack or Joe Thomas rather than Trent Richardson, if we're just tossing around high draft picks for players. Our backs were fine, and was not the primary issue with the offense. The O-line is, and always has been the weak link, and our "O-line" GM chooses to ignore it. Now we're stuck with McGlynn starting for us for at least the rest of the season. 

 

I do not agree with anything you have said. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. ;)

[YOUR GM]

"Are backs are fine", are you serious? D. Brown has been subpar at best and Bradshaw is coming off a foot injury (see MJD)

 

Bradshaw looked fine last game. If you're that worried about his health, bring in a back like McGahee to shore up the position (like the Browns did.) Don't go and panic and throw high draft picks at the first team willing to deal their starting back because you lost your marginally talented starting back for the season and your owner can't keep his mouth shut. Vick Ballard wasn't the end all, be all of this offense, and neither will Richardson be.  There was no need to make this move. Unless it's Adrian Peterson or we can somehow travel back in time and get prime Barry Sanders, there's no back in this league who can be productive without a decent line in front of them. Last time I checked, that wasn't our strong suit.

[YOUR GM]

I do not agree with anything you have said. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. ;)

 

I'm heart broken, really

[Goodtimes]

We seem obcessed with running the ball....

 

...We gave up year's No.1 (which hopefully wont be a high pick) for ANOTHER running back

 

We didn't even give Bradhsaw a full shot as the starter (obviously we didn't bring in TR to come off the bench)

 

 

    We have a premier QB. I don't want to be a running team.

 

..and Im worried that our defensive coach....our conservative OC and our O-lineman GM believe in a philosophy that went out in the 80s

 

That running the ball and defense can win consistently..and you don't want to throw 30 times.

 

 

    Im worried that we'd spend a No,.1 on a RB when we need O-line and D-line help

 

Every time you take the ball out of Andrew Luck';s hands, you are doing the opposition favor

 

This gets my vote for the dumbest thread of the year...

[hawkeyes]

The front office is making moves to win right now, yet we still have people who are complaining. 

 

This team (D and OL) are not in any way ready to compete for a championship!