Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Erik Walden

CCF

By CCF
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

smittywerb Hall of Famer

smittywerb

Posted
Posted

Best game he has had to me, though it wasn't an earth shattering performance 

 

 

That's who he is, a "get the job done" type of guy.  I agree, dude had a good game.  I saw him in on a good amount of plays.  Some plays he was there to push the runner inside but it was the inside that couldn't stop the runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Jay Kirk Walk On

Jay Kirk

Posted
Posted

he actually rushed the passer today...the only downside is i saw him 'overrush' leaving a wide space that wilson took advatange...

 

but mathis had the same issue.

Mathis did it quite a bit till coaching got it under control.All in all more positives and something to build on a big win :thmsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

Mathis did it quite a bit till coaching got it under control.All in all more positives and something to build on a big win :thmsup:

And truth be told Mathis has A LOT to learn!  Walden is still the only OLB who understands the concepts and acts upon them on a consistent basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

:rolleyes:  Well I guess if Brent says, "I NO way shape or form did Walden play BAD in the first half."  Then it must be true.  He over pursued on more than than one of the first few plays.  He got completely engulfed on others and failed to force the RB to change direction on yet others.

 

It's sad, I call them like I see them... whether I think a guy played well or poor(and when a player makes a good play, I don't then pretend the bad plays never happen), too bad other people are more concerned about proving their point that they are blind to everything except the good.  It's a big reason why actual football discussions are rare on this forum.  Most of what happens on here is cheerleader or bashing.

HMMMM...I actually agreed with you on a few things....OK...sorry I don't agree with everything you say.  (OK not really :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

I think saying a guy played "well"....."great"......."bad"........can almost always be disputed and is to general a term, anyone could pick a a play or two to say a player played bad......Heck I could do that with Mathis despite his sack because he blew contain a few times, I think a better word is inconsistent

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

I think saying a guy played "well"....."great"......."bad"........can almost always be disputed and is to general a term, anyone could pick a a play or two to say a player played bad......Heck I could do that with Mathis despite his sack because he blew contain a few times, I think a better word is inconsistent

I can agree with this one for sure Gav.  You can look at ANY one individual play and find 'something wrong' or 'someone' out of position.  

 

As we have said for a long time, Mathis has been torched numerous times in lack of contain...or not setting edge....he is the sackmaster general!!!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay Kirk Walk On

Jay Kirk

Posted
Posted

I can agree with this one for sure Gav.  You can look at ANY one individual play and find 'something wrong' or 'someone' out of position.  

 

As we have said for a long time, Mathis has been torched numerous times in lack of contain...or not setting edge....he is the sackmaster general!!!   :)

Wont argue that point,and never have :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeedrinker Practice Squad

Coffeedrinker

Posted
Posted

I know....some, however need to know we are not bickering females!   :)  We both like to rile sometimes an it makes it fun!

No, we are bickering males. 

 

But luike I said, I think Walden played a very good 2nd half, and if he plays like that 3 out of every 4 quarters for the rest of the season, I will change my mind from him being a bad pick-up to a good signing.

 

But the Colts as a team are giving up 4.8 yards per carry, teams are torching the Colts on the ground for a good portion of the game, so anyone involved in the run defense cannot be said to have a good overall game.  Walden gets it a little more because he's not responsible for much in the passing game (he's not good at coverage or rushing the passer), his main responsibility happens when the team runs the ball.  And when you look at the game 144 yards rushing in the 1st half, 74 in the second, Walden holds his position, then disengages and is making the play or in a position to make a play if someone else didn't.

 

Yes, I agree Angerer looked bad in the game and Freeman looked bad until they changed his responsibility and had him shadow Wilson.  Once he started doing that he looked great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Team Captain

dw49

Posted
Posted

No, we are bickering males. 

 

But luike I said, I think Walden played a very good 2nd half, and if he plays like that 3 out of every 4 quarters for the rest of the season, I will change my mind from him being a bad pick-up to a good signing.

 

But the Colts as a team are giving up 4.8 yards per carry, teams are torching the Colts on the ground for a good portion of the game, so anyone involved in the run defense cannot be said to have a good overall game.  Walden gets it a little more because he's not responsible for much in the passing game (he's not good at coverage or rushing the passer), his main responsibility happens when the team runs the ball.  And when you look at the game 144 yards rushing in the 1st half, 74 in the second, Walden holds his position, then disengages and is making the play or in a position to make a play if someone else didn't.

 

Yes, I agree Angerer looked bad in the game and Freeman looked bad until they changed his responsibility and had him shadow Wilson.  Once he started doing that he looked great.

 

 

A lot of that "bad" run defense is due to Prior and Wilson. With RG3 limited , there are only 3 QB's like this and we faced them all in the first 5 weeks of the season. Not only did they rip off large chunks of yardage , but they wore the defense down a bit. I think other than the 1st half of the SF game and a few Lunch runs yesterday , our run defense has beed pretty good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay Kirk Walk On

Jay Kirk

Posted
Posted

A lot of that "bad" run defense is due to Prior and Wilson. With RG3 limited , there are only 3 QB's like this and we faced them all in the first 5 weeks of the season. Not only did they rip off large chunks of yardage , but they wore the defense down a bit. I think other than the 1st half of the SF game and a few Lunch runs yesterday , our run defense has beed pretty good. 

Wont disagree with that assessment at all,pretty spot on.Allthough mistakes were made and room for improvement overall good performance to beat that team,we forced them into mistakes as well. :thmup:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

No, we are bickering males. 

 

But luike I said, I think Walden played a very good 2nd half, and if he plays like that 3 out of every 4 quarters for the rest of the season, I will change my mind from him being a bad pick-up to a good signing.

 

But the Colts as a team are giving up 4.8 yards per carry, teams are torching the Colts on the ground for a good portion of the game, so anyone involved in the run defense cannot be said to have a good overall game.  Walden gets it a little more because he's not responsible for much in the passing game (he's not good at coverage or rushing the passer), his main responsibility happens when the team runs the ball.  And when you look at the game 144 yards rushing in the 1st half, 74 in the second, Walden holds his position, then disengages and is making the play or in a position to make a play if someone else didn't.

 

Yes, I agree Angerer looked bad in the game and Freeman looked bad until they changed his responsibility and had him shadow Wilson.  Once he started doing that he looked great.

Maybe this will change with the less mobility of the QBs we face.  We still to be careful what we with for...some pretty good QBs coming up to a football field near you.  :)  One has this well known number...I believe 18......

 

Moreno scares me in that game because his best runs are to the right...outside.  We HAVE to set the edge in that game (All games actually)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

 Freeman looked bad until they changed his responsibility and had him shadow Wilson.  Once he started doing that he looked great.

 

Holy...

 

There was one long Wilson scamper, and they showed Freeman about ten yards ahead of him the whole way, running down the field trying to cover a receiver. And that's what his responsibility was on the play, but it was just amazing to me that he had no idea that the QB was right behind him with the football. 

 

Once they adjusted, he did a good job of forcing Wilson toward the sideline and limiting his gains. But that one play infuriated me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeedrinker Practice Squad

Coffeedrinker

Posted
Posted

A lot of that "bad" run defense is due to Prior and Wilson. With RG3 limited , there are only 3 QB's like this and we faced them all in the first 5 weeks of the season. Not only did they rip off large chunks of yardage , but they wore the defense down a bit. I think other than the 1st half of the SF game and a few Lunch runs yesterday , our run defense has beed pretty good. 

Are QB runs counted differently than RB runs?  And it wasn't a few Lynch runs, it was most of them... when a RB gets 102 yards on 17 carries and the longest run was 24 yards that is a below average run defense.

 

The run defense is bad except in two key areas; one, they are much better on 3rd/4th down run defense.  in 2006, for example, a 3rd/4th and short was almost a guaranteed 1st down but this year that seems to be when the team really steps it up and plays well.  Two, the 4th quarter... same as on 3rd/4th down those guys seem to dig in and really stop the running game.  The Colts being good in those areas leads me to believe the rest of the game will improve as the year progresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Team Captain

dw49

Posted
Posted

Are QB runs counted differently than RB runs?  And it wasn't a few Lynch runs, it was most of them... when a RB gets 102 yards on 17 carries and the longest run was 24 yards that is a below average run defense.

 

The run defense is bad except in two key areas; one, they are much better on 3rd/4th down run defense.  in 2006, for example, a 3rd/4th and short was almost a guaranteed 1st down but this year that seems to be when the team really steps it up and plays well.  Two, the 4th quarter... same as on 3rd/4th down those guys seem to dig in and really stop the running game.  The Colts being good in those areas leads me to believe the rest of the game will improve as the year progresses.

 

 

 

Much of both Prior's and Wilson's yardage came on pass plays where the QB broke containment and picked up big yardage. IMO , we defended the run option pretty well up to date. So although it counts for rushing yardage , some might think that it's a little different category.

 

Let me explain a little better . Lets' say the Colt were playing Denver . It might not be really accurate to say " Denver should be able to run the ball easily as the Colts give up an average of 4.6 yards per rush." It wouldn't be stupid to "disregard" the QB scrambles that "bloated" the average per rush you state. Now if we played Seattle again and faced Wilson rather than Manning , you certainly would want to include the QB scrambles into the equation.

 

"Are QB runs counted differently than RB runs?"  No.... I never said they didn't "count." If I did , I would have said the yards per carry are wrong. I just think that an end of LB not keeping containment on a pass play is really a little different than run defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

Much of both Prior's and Wilson's yardage came on pass plays where the QB broke containment and picked up big yardage. IMO , we defended the run option pretty well up to date. So although it counts for rushing yardage , some might think that it's a little different category.

 

Let me explain a little better . Lets' say the Colt were playing Denver . It might not be really accurate to say " Denver should be able to run the ball easily as the Colts give up an average of 4.6 yards per rush." It wouldn't be stupid to "disregard" the QB scrambles that "bloated" the average per rush you state. Now if we played Seattle again and faced Wilson rather than Manning , you certainly would want to include the QB scrambles into the equation.

 

"Are QB runs counted differently than RB runs?"  No.... I never said they didn't "count." If I did , I would have said the yards per carry are wrong. I just think that an end of LB not keeping containment on a pass play is really a little different than run defense. 

DW...I am drawing a blank on 'Prior.'  OOOPS...I just figured it out...dumb me...Pryor with the Raiders....I will go back to sleep now....:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Team Captain

dw49

Posted
Posted

DW...I am drawing a blank on 'Prior.'  OOOPS...I just figured it out...dumb me...Pryor with the Raiders....I will go back to sleep now.... :)

 

 

 

Sorry .. pretty lame on my part. Trying to write while watching my Pirates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

Sorry .. pretty lame on my part. Trying to write while watching my Pirates. 

I forgot that was on early.....thanks for the heads up.  I was not knocking the misspelling by the way....I thought I was have a brain fade (also known as a fart in older fellas...)  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Team Captain

dw49

Posted
Posted

I forgot that was on early.....thanks for the heads up.  I was not knocking the misspelling by the way....I thought I was have a brain fade (also known as a fart in older fellas...)   :)

 

 

No... I knew you were being a good guy. Calling Pryor Prior is vey confusing for sure. BTW I was 11 years old when I went to Yankee stadium to see that Pirates play the Yankees in the 60 series. So I know all about being an old guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coffeedrinker Practice Squad

Coffeedrinker

Posted
Posted

Much of both Prior's and Wilson's yardage came on pass plays where the QB broke containment and picked up big yardage. IMO , we defended the run option pretty well up to date. So although it counts for rushing yardage , some might think that it's a little different category.

 

Let me explain a little better . Lets' say the Colt were playing Denver . It might not be really accurate to say " Denver should be able to run the ball easily as the Colts give up an average of 4.6 yards per rush." It wouldn't be stupid to "disregard" the QB scrambles that "bloated" the average per rush you state. Now if we played Seattle again and faced Wilson rather than Manning , you certainly would want to include the QB scrambles into the equation.

 

"Are QB runs counted differently than RB runs?"  No.... I never said they didn't "count." If I did , I would have said the yards per carry are wrong. I just think that an end of LB not keeping containment on a pass play is really a little different than run defense. 

I understand all that and I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree.  It's not like Pryor or Wilson running the ball is a surprise, it is something that is accounted for in the game plan (or at least should be) and whether it's the game or the players they have not been executing the run defense well.  They have made some great adjustments during the game and have slowed it down.  But the only two games where it can be said the Colts did well against the run is the Jax game and that is in large part because Jax did not have a QB or WRs worthy of dedicating more than 3 guys on most plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Team Captain

dw49

Posted
Posted

I understand all that and I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree.  It's not like Pryor or Wilson running the ball is a surprise, it is something that is accounted for in the game plan (or at least should be) and whether it's the game or the players they have not been executing the run defense well.  They have made some great adjustments during the game and have slowed it down.  But the only two games where it can be said the Colts did well against the run is the Jax game and that is in large part because Jax did not have a QB or WRs worthy of dedicating more than 3 guys on most plays.

 

 

Sure and I agree that the Colts have done a crap job with 2 of the 3 running QB's they faced. It's also good that we all don't agree as we would have nothing to discuss. What I'm getting at is the "normal run game" is our front 7 taking on their O line and FB. I just think that the run option plays fall into that category but the QB scrambles on pass plays kind of go into a different category. But I agree with you that we need to get better in just plain stopping the running yardage being piled up against us. Maybe since many of these guys are new , we will get better as the season goes on.. Plus we lost Werner and RJF ... maybe improve a bit when these guys get back too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balzer40 Walk On

Balzer40

Posted
Posted

I'm still not sure there's many that really understand the way our 3-4 defense is supposed to work. Our defense has been pretty freakin good, except with problems with containment with running QB's. That is perfectly normal right now considering most teams still have trouble in the same area. Walden is doing exactly what he was brought here to do. Sure, he's had misses but name a player that don't. People just want to find something to whine about, it's like griping that Mathis doesn't get a sack on every play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jay Kirk Walk On

Jay Kirk

Posted
Posted

I'm still not sure there's many that really understand the way our 3-4 defense is supposed to work. Our defense has been pretty freakin good, except with problems with containment with running QB's. That is perfectly normal right now considering most teams still have trouble in the same area. Walden is doing exactly what he was brought here to do. Sure, he's had misses but name a player that don't. People just want to find something to whine about, it's like griping that Mathis doesn't get a sack on every play. 

LIKE   outta them dreaded things

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrentMc11 Walk On

BrentMc11

Posted
Posted

I'm still not sure there's many that really understand the way our 3-4 defense is supposed to work. Our defense has been pretty freakin good, except with problems with containment with running QB's. That is perfectly normal right now considering most teams still have trouble in the same area. Walden is doing exactly what he was brought here to do. Sure, he's had misses but name a player that don't. People just want to find something to whine about, it's like griping that Mathis doesn't get a sack on every play. 

Thank you Balzer for making my point from waaaay back!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • NFLfan
      Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

      By NFLfan · Posted

      Link to article   This guy likes what how Ballard has built the Colts. The Colts are far from being mediocre. JMO
    • smittywerb
      Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

      By smittywerb · Posted

      this was hilarious lol!!!
    • Shadow_Creek
      Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

      By Shadow_Creek · Posted

      lol this wont age well.. 🤣
    • TheNewGuy
      Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

      By TheNewGuy · Posted

      I almost spit my coffee out reading this a few times, lol!  I love sarcasm and I especially love it when there is some truth to it!  Well played Sir!
    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      I guess the whole question is the merits of the report. You report on his diabetes with tons of guesses and speculations and WITHOUT taking the side of the person who's been affected here and who's living and dealing with that condition. You report on the player being uncoachable WITHOUT taking the opinion of his coaches about being coachable or not(and BTW from what I've heard both from Colts and Texas coaches, this is resoundingly NOT TRUE). You report about him being immature and honestly, everything I've seen on the surface suggests the opposite. You report about his combine performance by giving it a pretty harsh reading(the video is in this thread and the account of what happened by McGinn is in this thread... People can actually go and look at what happened and make their own mind about whether the characterization of that workout was fair or not. I will just say you can represent the player stumbling in a drill and going again in various different ways and McGinn chose a specific way to represent it. It was the most negative way you could choose).    You know I had my own reservations about that outburst by Ballard at the presser, but the more I'm learning about Mitchell the more I actually believe in what Ballard was saying and the less merit those reports have in my mind. Maybe I have my own unconscious biases too, now that I have vested interest in Mitchell actually being good for us. I don't know     I guess ultimately none of it matters. AD's success or failure won't depend on some pre-draft reports... it will depend on how he handles himself from now on, how hard he works, his drive to be great and our staff's ability to get the best of him. 

  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...