To Those Who Say the Defense Redeemed Itself in the 2nd Half...

[masterlock]

I can't really disagree with this article on ColtsAuthority. They say, "a lot of people are taking comfort that the Colts only allowed seven points in the second half. They shouldn’t. Here is what really happened on the Denver drives in the second half:"

 

http://coltsauthority.com/2014-articles/eyes-in-the-backfield-denver-31-indianapolis-24.html

 

 

[Jules]

A lot of times I don't feel the Broncos know how to function with a huge lead. See New England last year too. I just am not sure though if I take pride in it or not since our own offense should have the ability to function in the first half itself and not just come alive in big deficits and comeback situations vs. good teams.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Exacty. You almost wish we got our * kicked so that we could actually get together and improve our flaws. 

[Smonroe]

I read the article and didn't agree either. Facts are facts, no matter how you spin it. The D gave up 7 in the second half. No asterisk next to it.

[masterlock]

I read the article and didn't agree either. Facts are facts, no matter how you spin it. The D gave up 7 in the second half. No asterisk next to it.

But part of the "facts" include those mentioned in the article. If we are to accept the 'facts" you allude to then we must also accept the facts cited by Dunlevy in the article They are inseparable. Getting lucky because your opponent fails to execute won't always save you.

[Nobody]

Every game has flukey things that happen, Denver should have given up way more points to us and got lucky. We gave up 7 points, period.

[TKnight24]

Not satisfied with it at all. There's 4 quarters of football, not 2

[rock8591]

Bad article.

 

If you look closely enough at anything, you're gonna notice problems, even if they don't exist. We gave up 7 poinds, period.

Your opponent failing to execute is part of the game.

[Smonroe]

But part of the "facts" include those mentioned in the article. If we are to accept the 'facts" you allude to then we must also accept the facts. They are inseparable. Getting lucky because your opponent fails to execute won't always save you.

You can play that game all night, we were unlucky in other parts of the game that could have changed this too. The only thing that counts is the actual score, right?

I think Nate's point was that we shouldn't take too much comfort in the way the D played even though they only gave up 7. I posted on his blog that we don't need the D to be great, I think we all realize that's not going to happen, as much as we all wish it did.

We only need the D to be good, like they were in the second half. We get that D all season and we're in great shape. That offense is going to be very hard to stop.

[Qwiz]

Well, the part about the Broncos second half offense isn't wrong in any way. Their defense gave up a lot of plays though no doubt but the article is spot on about the offense, drops killed several drives.

[Gavin]

I have no idea whu some insist that D Jackson was brought in to stop the run or was ever a decent run stopper and I don't agree with everything in that article but he made some good points.....He was never a good run stuffer though and wasn't brought in for that http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/3/1/5458398/mhr-scout-dqwell-Jackson

 

 

If those numbers by Pro Football Focus are accurate they also support my point,

[Superman]

I don't agree with his judgment about the second half defense. Just because Denver didn't execute the way they should have doesn't mean the defense shouldn't get credit for making the plays they made. Six possessions, five punts and a TD. Speaks for itself.

[HtownColt]

Defenses don't care how they get stops, as long as they get them, and they got 5 out of 6 in the 2nd half. Would've been 6 out of 6 if we would've recovered that fumble that Freeman forced and bounced by Butler

[Superman]

Defenses don't care how they get stops, as long as they get them, and they got 5 out of 6 in the 2nd half. Would've been 6 out of 6 if we would've recovered that fumble that went by Butler

 

Right. But that would have just been a mistake on Denver's part, not anything worth crediting the defense who made the play.

 

Actually, his article is fair, overall. I just disagree with that part. If you're gassed in the first half, and you come out in the second to hold the game's best offense to 7 points in the second half, you deserve some credit.

[NewColtsFan]

I have no idea whu some insist that D Jackson was brought in to stop the run or was ever a decent run stopper and I don't agree with everything in that article but he made some good points.....He was never a good run stuffer though and wasn't brought in for that http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/3/1/5458398/mhr-scout-dqwell-Jackson

 

 

If those numbers by Pro Football Focus are accurate they also support my point,

 

I thought it was made clear that DQwell was brought in to stop the run as he's been among the league leaders in tackles for a sizeable portion of his career?     Isn't that right?     He's often been among the league leaders?

 

Does he play the Mike?     Of is that Freeman?    I thought DQwell was brought in to be the Mike for the Colts?

 

He certainly doesn't look light footed enough to be running around with lots of receivers......

[oldunclemark]

Better all of us worry about Philadelphia..

[braveheartcolt]

Well, if Eagles spot us a 17 point lead, I'll be watching through my fingers.....

[Defjamz26]

I don't agree with his judgment about the second half defense. Just because Denver didn't execute the way they should have doesn't mean the defense shouldn't get credit for making the plays they made. Six possessions, five punts and a TD. Speaks for itself.

 

His reasoning was sound though. People wanted to sugar coat the spanking our D received by saying they played better in the 2nd half. Wasn't necessarily the case though. Denver didn't play as good the 2nd half. All giving the D unnecessary credit does is lead to delusions of grandeour.

 

That's what he's getting at that people still haven't realized with the Colts. Yeah the D made some plays, but they were more bad than they were good. Best QB in the game or not, they didn't show up. Its a personnel problem though so the blame for that is on Grigson. But yeah the offense was off too.

[Superman]

His reasoning was sound though. People wanted to sugar coat the spanking our D received by saying they played better in the 2nd half. Wasn't necessarily the case though. Denver didn't play as good the 2nd half. All giving the D unnecessary credit does is lead to delusions of grandeour.

 

That's what he's getting at that people still haven't realized with the Colts. Yeah the D made some plays, but they were more bad than they were good. Best QB in the game or not, they didn't show up. Its a personnel problem though so the blame for that is on Grigson. But yeah the offense was off too.

 

Unnecessary credit? Why shouldn't they get credit for the plays they made? The coverage was tighter, the tackling was better (for the most part). 

[Le Neon]

Not a bad article, but making a bunch of weak excuses for why the defense was successful in the second half is no better then making excuses for being eviscerated in the first half.

[Defjamz26]

Unnecessary credit? Why shouldn't they get credit for the plays they made? The coverage was tighter, the tackling was better (for the most part). 

 

That's like rewarding a kid get who gets a 50 on one test, and then retests and gets a 60. Sure it's better but failing is still failing. And you have be careful how you use the term "better", because the question is But to what end? They were "better" but not enough to make enough of a difference to tip the scales. It's not like we almost came back because the 2nd half defense was so much better, we came back because the offense was better, better enough to tip the scale and make an impact. Credit them for the plays they made, but don't sing the gospel like they saved the day.

 

Basically, you can't reward mediocrity is what we should take away from the article.

[Tor]

"Fans were killing Coby Fleener in part because Cris Collinsworth branded the second Luck pick “a catchable ball”. It wasn’t."

 

I stopped reading right here. The ball was catchable.

[BigQandTheManiac]

this is getting beyond ridiculous...every time they beat or come close to beating a team they aren't "suppose" to beat...there is always some nonsense excuse giving to why it happened....why is that?

[BlueCollarColts]

This is a dumb article IMO, at least on the defensive part.. You sit here and say the Colts defense shouldn't get credit because of bad field position, missed throws, dropped passes etc.? No thats part of the game, you have 3 downs to work with, not one or two, which those reviews of each possession only listed one mess up play of each possession, not a mention of previous plays. the Colts played much better defense in the 2nd half, mainly because we got a pass rush going a bit and made Manning throw a little bit before he felt comfortable doing so, and stopped the run.

 

If you don't think the Colts played good D in the second half, well then your criteria for defense is way too high imo.

[GoColts8818]

I am sorry I am not going to say the defense redeemed it's self but unless someone is just wanting poke holes for the sake of poking holes there is no denying the defense played extremely well in the second half.

[Superman]

That's like rewarding a kid get who gets a 50 on one test, and then retests and gets a 60. Sure it's better but failing is still failing. And you have be careful how you use the term "better", because the question is But to what end? They were "better" but not enough to make enough of a difference to tip the scales. It's not like we almost came back because the 2nd half defense was so much better, we came back because the offense was better, better enough to tip the scale and make an impact. Credit them for the plays they made, but don't sing the gospel like they saved the day.

 

Basically, you can't reward mediocrity is what we should take away from the article.

 

The defense got 5 stops on six possessions in the second half. How is that not enough to make a difference? We gave up  24 points in the first half, 7 in the second. That made a HUGE difference, and without those stops, the game is over early in the third quarter. The near comeback would have been impossible without those stops.

 

I don't know what else you could ask for. You're down 17, they get the ball, if you give up a TD the game is probably over. The defense got a stop. How is that not making a difference?

[weslo1812]

We could sit here and nit pick at how the defense wasn't as good as thought or tbis and that. We got stops in the second half and made the plays. If Denver didn't execute, that's thier fault and their problem. Because you can easily say for the colts offense had we executed could have scored 2-3 more touchdowns at least then what we did. And that it wasn't really all because of Denvers D that we only scored 7 points in the first half. This game goes both ways. Hek no our D wasnt perfect and has alot if improving left to do. I see this as the usual trying to give exuses to Denver to make them look better in thier Win despite the fact they almost blew their lead. But on the on the other end bring Colts effort down find little ways to belittle it.

[BleedBlu8792]

So.... Can the same be said about Denver's offense in the second half compared to the first then? It's the EXACT same thing but with the roles being reversed....

[CroatianColtsFan21]

Exacty. You almost wish we got our * kicked so that we could actually get together and improve our flaws. 

 

how would that help?! we got our * kicked by good teams plenty the past 3 seasons and still nothing's changed...

 

"getting together and improving our flaws" is easier said than done, and it sure as hell doesn't come from getting our * kicked...

.

empty cliches don't help either, no matter how much they are being repeated by coaches, gm's or fans...

[crazycolt1]

I hate articles that bases its contents on ifs. It says that Denver didn't do this or didn't do that in the second half. Well 'if' the Colts wouldn't have did this or done that in the first half they could have had the lead. Denver drops? I guess the Colts didn't have any?

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

But part of the "facts" include those mentioned in the article. If we are to accept the 'facts" you allude to then we must also accept the facts cited by Dunlevy in the article They are inseparable. Getting lucky because your opponent fails to execute won't always save you.

You could say the same thing for our offense .

So shouldn't Denver be lucky?

[Dustin]

Great article.

[Defjamz26]

The defense got 5 stops on six possessions in the second half. How is that not enough to make a difference? We gave up  24 points in the first half, 7 in the second. That made a HUGE difference, and without those stops, the game is over early in the third quarter. The near comeback would have been impossible without those stops.

 

I don't know what else you could ask for. You're down 17, they get the ball, if you give up a TD the game is probably over. The defense got a stop. How is that not making a difference?

 

Because there's 4 quarters of football not 2. The defense doesn't get that much credit for doing what they should've been doing in the first place. By the time they decided to get a stop, it was too late because the offense had to work from behind. We couldn't even run the ball because we needed to pass to catch up and conserve clock.

 

The bad out-weighs the good in this case. And only 1 out of the 5/6 stops were legitimate. The others were the Broncos stopping themselves.

[lollygagger8]

This is ridiculous: 

 

 

Fleener was fully extended; the ball was thrown hard; it glanced off his fingertips. There was no reason to throw this ball high. Luck threw an uncatchable pass. 

 

 

Not a great throw? Agreed. But uncatchable?? Not for a 6'6" TE with a 37" vertical. Fleener is "jumping" maybe 3" off the ground. 

 

Fleener also didn't time his jump in the end zone on a perfectly placed ball by Luck. Chris Collinsworth is not a good commentator, and I don't care for him, but he was right. Fleener jumped waaaaay too soon on the TD drop. 

 

Again, Fleener needs to quit playing scared to get hit and help his QB out. JUMP DUDE!! 

It's not like Luck doesn't know exactly what Fleener is capable of. 

[masterlock]

You could say the same thing for our offense .

So shouldn't Denver be lucky?

valid point

[Bravo]

Here we go.... Now our defense played bad the whole game becuase Robert Mathis is out for season.

It doesn't really matter what the Broncos did in the second half! Our defense still had to stop it! Everything will be fine! No doubt it's a huge loss for the postseason but we just need Werner to be decent at the least!

The sky is falling everyone.

[swifty1812]

"Fans were killing Coby Fleener in part because Cris Collinsworth branded the second Luck pick “a catchable ball”. It wasn’t."

 

I stopped reading right here. The ball was catchable.

LOL I stopped reading when I saw it was written by Dunleavy, everything of his has been filled with sour grapes since we dropped Manning and drafted Luck.

[crazycolt1]

Because there's 4 quarters of football not 2. The defense doesn't get that much credit for doing what they should've been doing in the first place. By the time they decided to get a stop, it was too late because the offense had to work from behind. We couldn't even run the ball because we needed to pass to catch up and conserve clock.

 

The bad out-weighs the good in this case. And only 1 out of the 5/6 stops were legitimate. The others were the Broncos stopping themselves.

If that's the case then couldn't you say the Colts were stopping themselves? It's not like the Colts defense was playing a high school team. The Bronco's happen to be pretty good in case you haven't noticed. The Colts went in at half time and made the adjustments that were needed.

[Defjamz26]

If that's the case then couldn't you say the Colts were stopping themselves? It's not like the Colts defense was playing a high school team. The Bronco's happen to be pretty good in case you haven't noticed. The Colts went in at half time and made the adjustments that were needed.

 

If you've read my previous posts in this topic, I alluded to that fact before. But at the same time, let's not act like the same things with the defense weren't shown in the pre-season against other teams. My thing isn't moreso that the defense played bad, but that there were bad players on the defense and it got exposed with the new rule changes. The D played bad, but if you take the best offense in the NFL with a defense that lacks any star power outside of Mathis and maybe Vontae, you have the result you saw.

 

It was a team loss because everyone underperformed (even Luck), but I think people are going to have to wake up and realize that this defense isn't anything special, and we're just going to get trumped by all the upper tier teams if we keep rewarding them for playing 2 quarters of football. We have to get better players on defense, point blank period.

[crazycolt1]

If you've read my previous posts in this topic, I alluded to that fact before. But at the same time, let's not act like the same things with the defense weren't shown in the pre-season against other teams. My thing isn't moreso that the defense played bad, but that there were bad players on the defense and it got exposed with the new rule changes. The D played bad, but if you take the best offense in the NFL with a defense that lacks any star power outside of Mathis and maybe Vontae, you have the result you saw.

 

It was a team loss because everyone underperformed (even Luck), but I think people are going to have to wake up and realize that this defense isn't anything special, and we're just going to get trumped by all the upper tier teams if we keep rewarding them for playing 2 quarters of football. We have to get better players on defense, point blank period.

Nobody is acting like anything. I think the larger majority of fans know the game well enough to see what the problems are. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the defense needs to play better if we expect to advance into the playoffs. I also don't agree with you when you say the Colts defense has no decent players outside of the two you mentioned. One of the two you mentioned is gone for the season by the way. The rule changes had little to do with what happened in that game. Matter of fact the safeties and cornerbacks played pretty well so the new rules didn't effect that much. As far as new rules there are no new rules. Enforcing rules already in place is what's going on.