Nicks

[SteelCityColt]

Your Pep bashing posts are now damn near unbearable TK..

 

Yeah it's one thing to have an opinion about something, another to push it in every topic going! 

 

Might as well go the same route we did with TRich and have a "Bash Pep" Sticky. 

 

I'm not even saying Pep is perfect, or disagreeing about some of the play calling, but come on it's getting like a broken record on here!

[SteelCityColt]

To the OP... 

 

 

Cool story Bro, needs more Dragons 

 

Sorry couldn't resist given the username

[B~Town]

I don't know if this is a factor with Nicks or not.....    but this is something I read a few weeks ago (prior to the season starting...)

 

On ESPN.com,  Tim Hasselback,  who I like very much (very bright guy)  wrote that he had been told that Nicks showed up to training camp.......  overweight and out of shape.

 

I was very, very, very not happy to learn that.

 

Here's a guy playing on a one-year make-good looking to have such a good 2014 season that he get's lots and lots of multi-year offers to drive up his price.

 

And what does he do?    Shows up overweight and out of shape.   (sigh...)

 

Again.....   maybe this means nothing in the grand scheme of things....   but since it's been public on ESPN.com,  I thought I'd share it here now since the subject of Nicks came up......

That whole thing was Nicks came to camp 5 lbs over what the staff though his ideal weight is . He was in shape just put some extra muscle on during the off season .

[BlueShoe]

I think we'd get a lot more chunk plays with Moncrief and Nicks involved.  It would also open up more chunk plays for T.Y.  I'm trying to be patient as I usually view the first two games of the season as almost an extension of the preseason where you're still building your best packages and creating chemistry. I expect Pep to get more aggresive with the involvement of Nicks and Moncrief as we play more games and have more things on film to exploit.

 

I agree. Having 2 very good teams in the first 2 weeks did not help either. We just have to roll with it.

 

What I like is the diversity of our offense. We have a team that can run the ball well against good run defenses, and we proved that against Philly. On paper, we also have the receivers that we need, to open the game up. We still need to prove that. I like the way we are built, and I believe we are still finding our identity. In the past, Pep has handled the adversity well. He has another challenge in front of him, but it is certainly attainable. 

[ProblChld32]

We were in 3 TE sets & 2 WR sets for at least 85% of the game

Once again, not playing to our strengths

Strength is the WR Corps, not the TE Corps

5 Good WR's

2 Good TE's and a okay 3rd TE. (Haven't send enough of Doyle yet)

 

Couldnt have said it any better man you were dead on, i want to see more Spread. I dont think Pep is taking advantage of all the impeccable talent he has on offense. there is no reason why Nicks should not get at least 5-6 targets and not on those nonsense screen plays. 

[BlueShoe]

I was mad that allen nicks and moncrief were not more involved. I dont mind richardson and bradshaw rush for over 150 combined but not at the expense of our passing game

 

By rushing for 150 yards, we controlled the game for the first 3 quarters.

 

We probably just need to mix it up a little more. Keep the defenses guessing. We did get a little complacent, and stuck to the run a little too long, but hindsight is 20/20. We use this game as a tool, learn from it, and move on. 

[BrentMc11]

There's no reason to separate the WR's from the TE's as receivers in this kind of discussion.

 

We have a top flight overall receiving corps.

 

Do you really care who gets the pass if there are passes going all around?

 

We have two top quality receiving tight ends and they're not getting enough targets.    And neither are Hicks or Moncrief, or Rogers or, for that matter,  Trent last night.

 

We have lots of weapons and most of them are not being used at all, let alone effectively.

 

I view this as a Pep thing.    And if Luck needs to audible more to make it happen -- then do it.

How many times have I said THIS!

[Jim H.]

There's no reason to separate the WR's from the TE's as receivers in this kind of discussion.

 

We have a top flight overall receiving corps.

 

Do you really care who gets the pass if there are passes going all around?

 

We have two top quality receiving tight ends and they're not getting enough targets.    And neither are Hicks or Moncrief, or Rogers or, for that matter,  Trent last night.

 

We have lots of weapons and most of them are not being used at all, let alone effectively.

 

I view this as a Pep thing.    And if Luck needs to audible more to make it happen -- then do it.

I love the "audible" part of your comment. Can you imagine what (and I hate to mention him here) Manning would do with this mix of talent? Luck is young, still - he needs to take control of the offense...maybe treat Hamilton's calls more like "suggestions." He isn't a college QB any longer.

[SilentHill]

The strategy worked fine. It was the turnovers that doomed the colts.

 

Yea, if you are comfortable with just barely winning.

 

I want this high powered offense to roll. We should be putting up 35 points on the eagles easily. Instead we play conservative with this ground and pound garbage. We need to let it rip, and we should be putting up 30+ points every game. It shouldn't require our defense giving up 44 for us to go out and score 45.

[Zam26]

I agree we should have more 4+ reciever sets to spread the ball around. But if you watch the game you would see that every time we ran those sets the defense would blitz. Our line handled some of those well and others not so well. Also, during those sets Luck only had time to throw a 2 yard pass and let the reciever make somthing out of it but the defense was all over those. I believe we stuck with the three tight end sets because the run game and passes out of that set was succeeding more therefore, was the better option

[Ryan Pelley]

Something that concerns me about the offensive play calling dating back to last season; Spending way too long trying to establish the run when it simply isn't going to happen. I understand Pagano (and all coaches) wanting a solid run game, but it gets so frustrating at times. With Luck and one of the most talented / deepest receiving cores in the league, it seems logical to play to our strengths and allow Luck to spread the field more.

 

Then again, it's easy to say "well the run doesn't work 80% of the time" when the game is already over. But I feel like there's 31 other teams that would be more pass oriented if Luck was starting for them...

[BOTT]

Yea, if you are comfortable with just barely winning.

 

I want this high powered offense to roll. We should be putting up 35 points on the eagles easily. Instead we play conservative with this ground and pound garbage. We need to let it rip, and we should be putting up 30+ points every game. It shouldn't require our defense giving up 44 for us to go out and score 45.

Once again, the Colts barely won due to turnovers. Not saying I want that type of offense every Sunday, but it worked quite well against the eagles.

[BOTT]

Nicks and Allen we're open a half dozen times vs the Eagles, Luck is forcing the ball to Wayne and Hilton and it's hurting the team. If Luck went to his 2nd and 3rd reads more, both players would have had over 75 yards.

[CR91]

anyone else cringe when luck threw the fade to nicks. boy was that ugly

[DougDew]

I agree we should have more 4+ reciever sets to spread the ball around. But if you watch the game you would see that every time we ran those sets the defense would blitz. Our line handled some of those well and others not so well. Also, during those sets Luck only had time to throw a 2 yard pass and let the reciever make somthing out of it but the defense was all over those. I believe we stuck with the three tight end sets because the run game and passes out of that set was succeeding more therefore, was the better option

Which feeds a growing thought that I have...that Luck (or the Colts receivers, or both) have not burned the blitz enough.  If you've got 4 WRs and the D blitzes, it would seem to me that at least 2 receivers are one on one and should run a hot route. 

 

I can't recall Luck ever completing a long pass on a blitz. Most of the time its what you describe, or a poorly thrown incompletion.  Until the Colts can show that they can beat the blitz, I think teams will do more of this.

[SilentHill]

Once again, the Colts barely won due to turnovers. Not saying I want that type of offense every Sunday, but it worked quite well against the eagles.

 

The game was too close, and the game's are always too close. I'm getting tired of it. It's almost like they do it on purpose.

[BOTT]

The game was too close, and the game's are always too close. I'm getting tired of it. It's almost like they do it on purpose.

That's because the Colts aren't overly talented. Go back and look at Manning's last few yrs when the Colts slung it all over the field...lots of close game.

[Tsarquise]

anyone else cringe when luck threw the fade to nicks. boy was that ugly

I cringed... It was super ugly... It made me wonder why we got rid of Manning.