Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ILB prospects


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have the same worries about Skov in coverage/range, but Skov has the ILB body to hold up against the run. And he's also a "player," no doubt about it. All other things equal, I'd go with Skov over Borland. But I don't think either of them are right for our defense.

 

Two points, just to elaborate on my viewpoint a bit:

 

1) We typically don't take our strongside ILB off the field in nickel situations. We usually sub an OLB and/or a defensive lineman. The goal, from what I can see, is to keep our two ILBs on the field as often as possible. We'll sub them situationally, but nickel subs isn't one of those situations. Couple that with the fact that more teams are passing on early downs and more teams have athletic QBs, and I'm not ecstatic about the idea of adding a range-impaired ILB. I just keep seeing replays of the Raiders game and the Chargers game, where in the first we couldn't do anything about Pryor, and in the second, our linebackers got taken apart with crossing routes. I see Borland adding to those issues, not helping them.

 

2) The fan base spent several years complaining about the Dungy/Polian linebacker -- the undersized guy who gets worn down facing pro blockers (some have even blamed the Colts perennial injury bug on this undersized obsession). That's Borland, except he doesn't have the speed that the Dungy/Polian backer would have. 

 

I recognize the guy as a talented player. I just don't think he fits our front. (I said earlier, there are other players that I absolutely LOVE, but don't think they fit what we're doing or what we need -- Aaron Donald, Allen Robinson, etc. I'm not just picking on Borland.) Let's see how he runs at his pro day and the Combine. 

 

Totally JMO.

 

How is 5'11", 245 lbs undersized, those are Borland's measurables. Dungy's LBs were in the low 230s tops, some even in the high 220s.

 

Besides, how many teams have 2 athletic TEs to run with if both ILBs have to take them on? Most use 3 WRs, we won't use our ILBs on them for coverage, period if the 3 WR look is the norm. Athletic QBs, if the side to side speed is good enough, we can handle them. We have one year of edge setting principles drilled into our D that our DL and OLBs will force more plays inside which is where we need to get stronger at the point of attack. We learnt from the Pryor game and kept Kaepernick in the pocket. Our issues are in the middle vs the run at the ILB and safety spots. Even if the DL gets the stalemate, the LBs are not finishing plays.

 

We will be facing few teams that run the no huddle, so we will have plenty of opportunities to run different sub packages that might even include blitzing from the ILB. Of course Grigs and his scouts have film to lean on regarding the side to side speed of Borland.

 

We will see how it plays out. JMO. Good discussion!!!

 

Read this, Wisconsin moved to a 3-4 last year: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/redskins-watch/2014/jan/21/opportunity-desired-versatile-wisconsin-linebacker/

 

Also, look at this roster (of the Steelers) and pay attention to the LBs: http://www.steelers.com/team/roster.html

 

Chris Borland is not by any means undersized, IMO, based on all that I am reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is 5'11", 245 lbs undersized, those are Borland's measurables. Dungy's LBs were in the low 230s tops, some even in the high 220s.

 

Besides, how many teams have 2 athletic TEs to run with if both ILBs have to take them on? Most use 3 WRs, we won't use our ILBs on them for coverage, period if the 3 WR look is the norm. Athletic QBs, if the side to side speed is good enough, we can handle them. We have one year of edge setting principles drilled into our D that our DL and OLBs will force more plays inside which is where we need to get stronger at the point of attack. We learnt from the Pryor game and kept Kaepernick in the pocket. Our issues are in the middle vs the run at the ILB and safety spots. Even if the DL gets the stalemate, the LBs are not finishing plays.

 

We will be facing few teams that run the no huddle, so we will have plenty of opportunities to run different sub packages that might even include blitzing from the ILB. Of course Grigs and his scouts have film to lean on regarding the side to side speed of Borland.

 

We will see how it plays out. JMO. Good discussion!!!

 

Read this, Wisconsin moved to a 3-4 last year: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/redskins-watch/2014/jan/21/opportunity-desired-versatile-wisconsin-linebacker/

 

Also, look at this roster (of the Steelers) and pay attention to the LBs: http://www.steelers.com/team/roster.html

 

Chris Borland is not by any means undersized, IMO, based on all that I am reading.

 

Good point, Borland is definitely a bit heavier than some of the Dungy guys.

 

But I still have questions about his range. I disagree with you about how we sub our linebackers and how they're used in coverage. I remember several games this year where linebackers got matched up with receivers because of bunch formations, etc. And several times when linebackers couldn't run with tight ends across the field, or running backs in the flats. Delanie Walker ate our linebackers up in the first game, and in both matchups, the Titans found ways to pick on our linebackers in coverage. I mentioned the Chargers game already. I definitely think our ILBs need to be able to cover, on every down. 

 

Borland is an excellent blitzer. One might be worried about him being engaged by blockers because of his shorter arms, and that shows up in film from time to time, but he has great hands and keeps blockers off of him. Plus with his shorter frame and explosiveness, he's hard to engage with anyways. He even has a little spin move. Wisconsin blitzes him over and over again on passing downs, probably because he's so good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok that makes more sense. But in this day and age you really do need a guy that can cover for 4 downs on a series. I think Smallwood is that guy.

 

Also is English your first language? If not, where are you from? I love learning about where other people are from.

 

Well sure, we need ILB's that can cover for 4 downs and also stop the run effectively.  We need DLmen that can occupy blockers, beat even double teams and make plays in the backfield.  We need OLB's that can cover, rush the passer and set the edge against the run.  We need CB's that can play equally effectively in zone, man and bump and run along with safeties that can each cover the backend as well as help in the box.  With a salary cap though, you gotta make choices. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sure, we need ILB's that can cover for 4 downs and also stop the run effectively.  We need DLmen that can occupy blockers, beat even double teams and make plays in the backfield.  We need OLB's that can cover, rush the passer and set the edge against the run.  We need CB's that can play equally effectively in zone, man and bump and run along with safeties that can each cover the backend as well as help in the box.  With a salary cap though, you gotta make choices. ;)

And the smart choice would be to go for a better pass defender ILB  who is solid on the run, than a  bad pass protector who is great against the run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Borland is definitely a bit heavier than some of the Dungy guys.

 

But I still have questions about his range. I disagree with you about how we sub our linebackers and how they're used in coverage. I remember several games this year where linebackers got matched up with receivers because of bunch formations, etc. And several times when linebackers couldn't run with tight ends across the field, or running backs in the flats. Delanie Walker ate our linebackers up in the first game, and in both matchups, the Titans found ways to pick on our linebackers in coverage. I mentioned the Chargers game already. I definitely think our ILBs need to be able to cover, on every down. 

 

Borland is an excellent blitzer. One might be worried about him being engaged by blockers because of his shorter arms, and that shows up in film from time to time, but he has great hands and keeps blockers off of him. Plus with his shorter frame and explosiveness, he's hard to engage with anyways. He even has a little spin move. Wisconsin blitzes him over and over again on passing downs, probably because he's so good at it.

 

Those games that you're thinking of, which games were they or do you remember specifically?  I only ask because, as has been discussed before, the Colts coverage as a whole got significantly worse when Toler got hurt and Vaughn took over.  It seemed during that time that the coaches were using more zone coverage and more LB's in coverage than earlier in the season.  For the most part though, I don't remember seeing 2 ILB's very often when the opposing team was in a 3 or more WR set, but during the games when  Vaughn was the #2 CB that very well could have been the case because maybe they felt better with our best LB's on the field instead of our worst CB's.  Just spitballing here.

 

Overall for the course of the year, the Colts actually didn't do that poorly against the pass.  They were 12th overall in fewest passing yards allowed and tied for 7th in fewest TD passes allowed.  So I guess when it comes to looking at bringing in new ILB's, I would be more concerned about their run stopping ability.  If we can find an every down ILB at the end of the 2nd round, or even trade up for one then great.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the smart choice would be to go for a better pass defender ILB  who is solid on the run, than a  bad pass protector who is great against the run. 

 

I don't think anyone wants to bring in an offensive lineman to play ILB. :P  

 

 

To your point though, I agree to an extent, but I also would not want an ILB that is great in coverage but a liability against the run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same worries about Skov in coverage/range, but Skov has the ILB body to hold up against the run. And he's also a "player," no doubt about it. All other things equal, I'd go with Skov over Borland. But I don't think either of them are right for our defense.

 

Two points, just to elaborate on my viewpoint a bit:

 

1) We typically don't take our strongside ILB off the field in nickel situations. We usually sub an OLB and/or a defensive lineman. The goal, from what I can see, is to keep our two ILBs on the field as often as possible. We'll sub them situationally, but nickel subs isn't one of those situations. Couple that with the fact that more teams are passing on early downs and more teams have athletic QBs, and I'm not ecstatic about the idea of adding a range-impaired ILB. I just keep seeing replays of the Raiders game and the Chargers game, where in the first we couldn't do anything about Pryor, and in the second, our linebackers got taken apart with crossing routes. I see Borland adding to those issues, not helping them.

 

2) The fan base spent several years complaining about the Dungy/Polian linebacker -- the undersized guy who gets worn down facing pro blockers (some have even blamed the Colts perennial injury bug on this undersized obsession). That's Borland, except he doesn't have the speed that the Dungy/Polian backer would have. 

 

I recognize the guy as a talented player. I just don't think he fits our front. (I said earlier, there are other players that I absolutely LOVE, but don't think they fit what we're doing or what we need -- Aaron Donald, Allen Robinson, etc. I'm not just picking on Borland.) Let's see how he runs at his pro day and the Combine. 

 

Totally JMO.

McNary  Is the cover guy, Borland the run guy, Not a fan of Scov i think he is soft! Also I read somewhere where Borland could cover but rushed more on passing downs. They have said durring the Senior bowl practices Borland was Ok in coverage. With a strong pass rush, coverage skills would be minimized. Also I don't agree that Borland is UNDERSIZED, He is short, but has size. I see him more like a Zack Thomas overachiever type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those games that you're thinking of, which games were they or do you remember specifically?  I only ask because, as has been discussed before, the Colts coverage as a whole got significantly worse when Toler got hurt and Vaughn took over.  It seemed during that time that the coaches were using more zone coverage and more LB's in coverage than earlier in the season.  For the most part though, I don't remember seeing 2 ILB's very often when the opposing team was in a 3 or more WR set, but during the games when  Vaughn was the #2 CB that very well could have been the case because maybe they felt better with our best LB's on the field instead of our worst CB's.  Just spitballing here.

 

Overall for the course of the year, the Colts actually didn't do that poorly against the pass.  They were 12th overall in fewest passing yards allowed and tied for 7th in fewest TD passes allowed.  So I guess when it comes to looking at bringing in new ILB's, I would be more concerned about their run stopping ability.  If we can find an every down ILB at the end of the 2nd round, or even trade up for one then great.  

 

Chargers, both Titans games, I think the Cardinals or Rams game (not sure which), off the top of my head. The Chargers game is the only one Toler was on the field for. I haven't gone back to rewatch the season yet, so I'm not that fresh. Couldn't say whether this became a bigger problem as the year went on.

 

But I don't think it was an issue of just leaving our base defense on the field because we didn't like our corners. That's madness. Our worst corner will do better than our best coverage backer against a WR. I know Manusky made some questionable decisions, but I'd be shocked if that was one of them. I think teams just cross-matched us with two receivers and a tight end on one side of the field, or motioning a back into the slot, etc. And then you're putting a linebacker either on a receiver or on a pass catching tight end.

 

I don't use raw yardage stats to grade a defensive performance, especially not when we're talking about what the team's needs are. JMO. I think it's clear that our ILBs struggled to cover, and that's not limited to man coverage. If you use crossing routes and pick plays, we're vulnerable in the middle of the field all the way to the sideline. I would love to have an every down backer, so long as he can tackle well and isn't a liability against the pass. But if he's going to be better at one thing than the other, I think I'd prefer him to be better in coverage. And the reason why is because, ideally, we want to keep our two ILBs on the field in nickel situations. We essentially become a 4-2-5. The players subbed are a lineman and one of the OLBs, not the ILBs, typically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McNary  Is the cover guy, Borland the run guy, Not a fan of Scov i think he is soft! Also I read somewhere where Borland could cover but rushed more on passing downs. They have said durring the Senior bowl practices Borland was Ok in coverage. With a strong pass rush, coverage skills would be minimized.

 

I saw a couple of Wisconsin games, and I've watched a handful of his draftbreakdown.com tapes, and Borland probably dropped into coverage 30% of the time (not a scientific analysis by any means). I'm sure the Senior Bowl guys have seen him in coverage more than I have, but in general, he's not used in coverage all that much. 

 

And I agree that a great pass rush helps coverage, but you need to cover for a little bit. Passing concepts are designed to get guys open right away, with crossing routes, pick plays, Indy routes, etc. Those pick on linebackers by design. Can't have your ILBs trailing tight ends or worse, receiver, across the middle of the field. It only takes a second, and you've given up a catch and moderate YAC, and it's first down again.

 

Not sure how you deduce that Skov is soft. I think he's anything but. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a couple of Wisconsin games, and I've watched a handful of his draftbreakdown.com tapes, and Borland probably dropped into coverage 30% of the time (not a scientific analysis by any means). I'm sure the Senior Bowl guys have seen him in coverage more than I have, but in general, he's not used in coverage all that much. 

 

And I agree that a great pass rush helps coverage, but you need to cover for a little bit. Passing concepts are designed to get guys open right away, with crossing routes, pick plays, Indy routes, etc. Those pick on linebackers by design. Can't have your ILBs trailing tight ends or worse, receiver, across the middle of the field. It only takes a second, and you've given up a catch and moderate YAC, and it's first down again.

 

Not sure how you deduce that Skov is soft. I think he's anything but. 

Honestly I don't watch much college football, I only saw him in the bowl game this year & was like ahhhhh hes is OK. I am not a fan of inside guys that are that rangie. He just didn't look tough to me! I will watch some tape of him for a greater understanding of his skill. I would think by his build he is decent in coverage! I hear you on the Lbers covering, I know, but me personally I tired of getting run on! The Patriots game too me was embarrassing & honestly we were run on pretty well this year. And this is on a defense that claims they want to STOP THE RUN & BE TOUGH. The Colts defense is not tough. We play in a division where six of our games are against run oriented teams. We must stop the run. I believe teams will use that Patriot tape & try to bury us with the run & will continue to do so until we stop it. When is the last time the Colts had a REAL MLB, IIL, Jeff Herrod? to long. I believe because Borland is a football player he will anticipate things in the passing game if asked to. Speed does not always translate to wise use or execution of it IE DHB. I do believe that McNary could be the cover guy, and maybe more. Would need to see a bigger body of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chargers, both Titans games, I think the Cardinals or Rams game (not sure which), off the top of my head. The Chargers game is the only one Toler was on the field for. I haven't gone back to rewatch the season yet, so I'm not that fresh. Couldn't say whether this became a bigger problem as the year went on.

 

But I don't think it was an issue of just leaving our base defense on the field because we didn't like our corners. That's madness. Our worst corner will do better than our best coverage backer against a WR. I know Manusky made some questionable decisions, but I'd be shocked if that was one of them. I think teams just cross-matched us with two receivers and a tight end on one side of the field, or motioning a back into the slot, etc. And then you're putting a linebacker either on a receiver or on a pass catching tight end.

 

I don't use raw yardage stats to grade a defensive performance, especially not when we're talking about what the team's needs are. JMO. I think it's clear that our ILBs struggled to cover, and that's not limited to man coverage. If you use crossing routes and pick plays, we're vulnerable in the middle of the field all the way to the sideline. I would love to have an every down backer, so long as he can tackle well and isn't a liability against the pass. But if he's going to be better at one thing than the other, I think I'd prefer him to be better in coverage. And the reason why is because, ideally, we want to keep our two ILBs on the field in nickel situations. We essentially become a 4-2-5. The players subbed are a lineman and one of the OLBs, not the ILBs, typically. 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't use raw yardage stats either as a way to grade the defense, but rather just to help put things into context.  Some people have said that our coverage unit was down right horrible and that is simply not true.  They were obviously not perfect either though by any means.

 

The games you mentioned...as you said there was only one that Toler was on the field for.  I don't want to say I gave the defense a pass during those games, but at the same time I don't grade them quite as harshly as the first several games due to the fact they were trying to figure out how to compensate for the loss of a solid #2 Man CB.  Just like the offense was trying to figure out how to adapt with the loss of Reggie.  

 

Speaking of Reggie, I didn't even really put it together until just now, but the team was trying to figure out how to move forward without Reggie and without Toler at the same time.  So the team was trying to figure these things out during that stretch when we faced @Hou, StL, Ari and both Tenn games.  So I think a lot of the coverage issues, well the defensive issues as a whole, were due to trying to figure out how to adjust coverages with a vastly inferior #2 CB and an offense that was stagnant.  

 

So, while it was obvious how bad the defense was during that stretch (the offense as well), I don't think that's indicative of the base schemes the coaches are implementing nor the defense as a whole...especially since they figured out that Butler on the outside and Gordy on the slot was a better combo than Vaughn on the outside with Butler still in the slot.  I do think it is indicative that we need better health from the guys in the secondary and better overall depth in the secondary since injuries are going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think ILB is our real problem in run support.  It is the DL.  They are not holding up.  I've got a little experience as a 3-4 end, and I tell you, if one of the front three gets beat, its big yards on the ground.  You know how Qbs love OL, well for LB it is the DL.  You have to keep your LBs clean.  An example would be San Fransico.  They have some of the best MLBs and Safeties in the game, and Lynch kills them every time they play the Seahawks.  I know Lynch is great, but still.  The LB and S can fill hard, but if the front three get beat, you're up the creek. Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think ILB is our real problem in run support.  It is the DL.  They are not holding up.  I've got a little experience as a 3-4 end, and I tell you, if one of the front three gets beat, its big yards on the ground.  You know how Qbs love OL, well for LB it is the DL.  You have to keep your LBs clean.  An example would be San Fransico.  They have some of the best MLBs and Safeties in the game, and Lynch kills them every time they play the Seahawks.  I know Lynch is great, but still.  The LB and S can fill hard, but if the front three get beat, you're up the creek. Just my 2 cents.

 

I think it's both. The line will have good games, only to be foiled by the backers missing tackles, and sometimes the line doesn't play great and puts more pressure on the backers. We should continue to get better on the line, with Chapman and Hughes improving and getting more reps, and RJF did a reasonable job last year as well. Need more depth. But we also need our backers to be more consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dont' see the point in replacing a guy who can't cover (Angerer), with a guy who can't cover (Skov).  I think a team that would be albe to use Skov as a rotational 3-4 OLB would be better served by drafting him.

Being a Notre Dame fan, I've watched quite a bit of Stanford, Notre Dame games. although Skov's skill set is similar to angerer's, Skov will be twice the player angerer is. Skov's football IQ is off the charts, he reads the blocking the way all great MLB's do, and unlike angerer he doesnt fill the hole and wait for the back. He trusts his instincts and he hits the hole. And he hits it hard. The colts havent had an aggressive run stopping linebacker like him in a long time. It's also a pretty safe bet he will be there at our 2nd round pick, and maybe if we are lucky, our 3rd as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Notre Dame fan, I've watched quite a bit of Stanford, Notre Dame games. although Skov's skill set is similar to angerer's, Skov will be twice the player angerer is. Skov's football IQ is off the charts, he reads the blocking the way all great MLB's do, and unlike angerer he doesnt fill the hole and wait for the back. He trusts his instincts and he hits the hole. And he hits it hard. The colts havent had an aggressive run stopping linebacker like him in a long time. It's also a pretty safe bet he will be there at our 2nd round pick, and maybe if we are lucky, our 3rd as well.

 

Skov absolutely is better than Angerer, but I still think he'll be a liability in pass defense.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...