Luck is Regressing Under this Regime

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

It's 2nd and 4, on the back of your rushing attack. The best attack all game long has been the run. I don't understand this staunch opposition to running again. (I agree, and have said a lot myself, that play action or even read option would be a great call there.)

And yeah, if we're running the ball well, I don't care if we run it all night long. Just move the ball, score TDs, and at the end of the game, get first downs.

Also, we didn't put the entire game on the rushing attack. We asked Luck to pick up a very achievable 3rd and 5. He's our best player; he's the future of the franchise. Third and 5 ought to be a favorable situation for him. (Ironically, another poster is arguing that we should have been taking the ball OUT of Luck's hands in that situation, because he hadn't been playing well.)

I'd like to see us convert there, period. I don't care if it's three runs, three passes, three penalties, whatever. Like I said earlier, it's "you should have done something else" time because we lost. Meanwhile, I, like you, think we did some good things against the Eagles, things we can build on. I'm looking forward to Jacksonville. Might get some sacks.

U mean running with the guy that fumbled twice? Wasn't like Bradshaw was running

[ColtsBlueFL]

I think we're in "If what you did didn't work, you should have done the other thing" territory now. I get what you're saying, but we don't complain about 3rd down conversions, whether they are runs, passes, penalties, whatever. If Luck had made a better decision, if the penalty was called, whatever, we're not talking about that down. I don't have a problem with asking our franchise QB to throw on 3rd and 5, no matter how he's done on 3rd down overall in that game. JMO

But every game is different, the flow goes its own way. Tom Moore used to talk about he and Manning getting that feel early and using it to their advantage.  Somebody on the Colts has to be charting what each play was and what it accomplished.  The first half would show what we all know, the run game dominated and Luck's passing was minimal and fairly ineffective.  In the first half he completed only 2 out of 4 passes attempted on 2nd down, for  0 and -4 yards..  but it was diversionary as the run game was the chain mover. 

 

But in the 2nd half, as Philly was slowing down our running game some, Luck went 4 out of 5 for 42 yards on 2nd down attempts in the 3rd quarter, and Luck was 4 out of 4 for 52 yards on second down in the 4th quarter.  8 out of 9 for 94 yards in the second half.  This can't be ignored and I'm not so sure this wasn't pointed out to Pagano until later after the game and he believe has now recanted saying we should have thrown it on second down. As I noted before, Luck completed just 3 passes out of nine (43 yards) the whole game on 3rd down until the miss on 3rd and 5 making it 3 out of 10. To my thinking, they ignored the flow of the game and went against the odds twice on that last drive. And paid a price doing so.

 

After the first down run, I would indeed have preferred a pass attempt on 2nd down. But since we ran (and lost a yard), a pass now on 3rd down seemed predictable and Luck's track record in that situation the whole game was poor.  So I was for some type of formation their D recognizes that we pass out of, but run it at that point.  We did neither, thus my dismay.  {In my Michael Smith voice} - "Numbers never lie."

 

You all have  nothing but  "Luck is supposed to get that" as your mantra.

[BlueShoe]

I tell you what. This board is getting more ridiculous by the day.

 

Wow. Think it might be time for me to take a break from this board.

[High Valyrian]

What's wrong with this thread?  Personally, I find nothing amiss with it.

 

For your listening pleasure 

 

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11539097&ex_cid=espnapi_public

 

Perhaps Trent Dilfer is irrelevant too, as I don't think he has 100 posts here either.

 

Thank you, sfergson727, for having perspective. Thanks also for posting that link. I am not a troll. I am not a homer. I just use my eyeballs, watch games, and state what I see. And what I've seen this year, in both (his limited) pre-season and two regular season games, is a different Andrew Luck. There has to be a reason for this, and I stated my opinion as to that reason. That's it. I had no intention to start a flame war, troll, or necessitate posting restrictions for new members. (Really? That's a bit totalitarian isn't it?) But thanks, again, for the defense.

 

/Also thanks to ruksak and a few others for having my back...even if having different opinions than mine.      

[Superman]

But every game is different, the flow goes its own way. Tom Moore used to talk about he and Manning getting that feel early and using it to their advantage.  Somebody on the Colts has to be charting what each play was and what it accomplished.  the first half would show what we all know, the run game dominated and Luck's passing was minimal and fairly ineffective.  In the first half he completed 2 out of 4 passes attempted on 2nd down, for  0 and -4 yards..  but it was diversionary as the run game was the chain mover. 

 

But in the 2nd half, as Philly was slowing down our running game some, Luck went 4 out of 5 for 42 yards on 2nd down attempts in the 3rd quarter, and Luck was 4 out of 4 for 52 yards on second down in the 4th quarter.  8 out of 9 for 94 yards in the second half.  This can't be ignored and I'm not so sure this wasn't pointed out to Pagano until later after the game and he has now recanted saying we should have thrown it on second down. As I noted before, Luck completed just 3 passes out of nine (43 yards) the whole game on 3rd down until the miss on 3rd and 5. To my thinking, they ignored the flow of the game and went against the odds twice on that last drive. And paid a price doing so.

 

After the first down run, I would indeed have preferred a pass attempt on 2nd down. But since we ran (and lost a yard), a pass now on 3rd down seemed predictable and Luck's track record in that situation the whole game was poor.  So I was for some type of formation their D recognizes that we pass out of, but run it at that point.  We did neither, thus my dismay.  {In my Michael Smith voice} - "Numbers never lie."

 

You all have  nothing but  "Luck is supposed to get that" as your mantra.

 

You're double talking. I can't believe you don't see it, or maybe I'm missing the point.

 

First, you talk about how much better Luck played in the second half. Then you argue that we shouldn't have put the ball in Luck's hands on third and 5 because throughout the whole game, he wasn't great on third down. So are you arguing we should have let Luck throw the ball, but NOT on third down?

 

Your probability analysis is incomplete, as it doesn't account for distance on third down, but I get your point. However, if we stick to that, you're basically nixing any third down passing. "Okay, the odds say we're 33% when we pass on third down, so let's not pass on third down anymore." That's not how it works, especially -- and here it goes again -- when you have a good QB. 

 

Talking about second down? Your point is well taken. The probability suggests that we'd have been more successful throwing the ball on second down. I do think it's important to note that the first down play was successful, and in keeping with the pattern so far in the game, that we could run the ball when we wanted, for the most part. Given the time remaining and the score, I get why we followed up with a run on second down. Perfect time to do something else, as you've pointed out, but I think Pep was anticipating another successful run, and since we're talking about probability based on previous results, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

 

Now that we've run it on second down, that's over. "Dang, we should have thrown it." Oh well, it's third down now, and we need 5. We have this guy over here who is the key to any success we're going to have, and we know he has a high ceiling. But you'd take the ball out of his hands because you don't like the odds. It's like a manager calling a bunt with his best hitter at the plate, because the odds say it's the right play. And what I'm saying is that good/great players are odds busters, that's why you put the ball in your best player's hands when big plays come up, even if he's not having a great game.

 

And we haven't even discussed the odds of converting on the ground on third and 5, and how they compare to throwing on third and 5, even when Luck is struggling on third down. I agree with you on second down, though I think it's a hindsight criticism, but I don't understand your beef with third down.

[John Dee]

Tom Moore  ...   "let players decide games, not plays" .. 

 

This is where I have a problem with this coaching staff.    They are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.   Ya, Indy ran well with the JUMBO stuff against the Eagles..      but they will NOT get where they want to be trying this stuff all the time.   

 

Put the BEST players on the field and let them play.    There is absolutely NO reason Hilton should ever be on the sideline unless it is a fourth and goal form the 1 yard line.   And when they started moving TY around "BAM" he started making plays...    

 

The quicker this staff realizes what their "bread and butter" is the better off this team will be.

[crazycolt1]

False.  Stop spreading disinformation, or show your work that your claim is true.

Luck was sacked 41 times and hit 105 times under Arians. Last season he was sacked 32 times and was hit 95 times under Pep. So far this season he has only been sacked 3 times in 3 games. That can be looked up at ESPN stats. As you were saying?

[wordofmouth]

Luck was clean and up right most of game

I agree

 

Luck is making the same mistakes he's made holding onto the ball to long staring down 1 receiver not going through his progressions . He's also making a lot of bad passes that any NFL QB should make he really does appear to be regressing in this system .

Unfortunately, I agree again

 

Clapton is a great guitarist but the best? No.

And I really agree! Although calling anyone the worlds "Best" guitarist is kind of silly

[ColtsBlueFL]

You're double talking. I can't believe you don't see it, or maybe I'm missing the point.

 

First, you talk about how much better Luck played in the second half.

Only on second down!  Not 3rd

 

Then you argue that we shouldn't have put the ball in Luck's hands on third and 5 because throughout the whole game, he wasn't great on third down. So are you arguing we should have let Luck throw the ball, but NOT on third down?

 

In that spot, that situation, that is exactly what 'Im suggesting. Throw on 2nd down and not on 3rd. And my numbers support my position.

 

Your probability analysis is incomplete, as it doesn't account for distance on third down,

 

Oh, I got those, why is it important?   3rd and 14 - got 5.  3rd and 6 - got 5. 3rd and 1, got 8   3rd and 14 - INC, 3rd and 10 INC , 3rd and 13 - 19  , 3rd and 2 INC , 3rd and 5 - 16 , 3rd and 9 INT , 3rd and 5 - INC  Only 3 conversions in 10 chances. Some of those were really short and even easier than getting 5. That is a poor and unreliable performance.

 

but I get your point. However, if we stick to that, you're basically nixing any third down passing. "Okay, the odds say we're 33% when we pass on third down, so let's not pass on third down anymore." That's not how it works, especially -- and here it goes again -- when you have a good QB. 

 

Not all, just in that situation.  Should have went pass on second.  Onsome of the other short ones, we might have made those running it, yes? Numbers say so.

 

Talking about second down? Your point is well taken. The probability suggests that we'd have been more successful throwing the ball on second down. I do think it's important to note that the first down play was successful, and in keeping with the pattern so far in the game, that we could run the ball when we wanted, for the most part. Given the time remaining and the score, I get why we followed up with a run on second down. Perfect time to do something else, as you've pointed out, but I think Pep was anticipating another successful run, and since we're talking about probability based on previous results, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

 

Possibly, but numbers show running game was slowing down and Lucks success on 2nd down passes were off the charts.

 

Now that we've run it on second down, that's over. "Dang, we should have thrown it." Oh well, it's third down now, and we need 5. We have this guy over here who is the key to any success we're going to have, and we know he has a high ceiling. But you'd take the ball out of his hands because you don't like the odds.

 

Just right there, in that spot, yes. He was poor all game on it and D was expecting it.  If the run was so good for second down, why all of a sudden is it not as a surprise play on third? The idea is to avoid 3rd down if at all possible.

 

It's like a manager calling a bunt with his best hitter at the plate, because the odds say it's the right play. And what I'm saying is that good/great players are odds busters, that's why you put the ball in your best player's hands when big plays come up, even if he's not having a great game.

 

He didn't beat the odds now, did he?  Football isn't baseball either, but chances are that best hitter that is 0-3 with 2 K's and reached on an error and is now facing their best closer isn't going to magically hit a walk off HR that day. So we will disagree.

 

And we haven't even discussed the odds of converting on the ground on third and 5, and how they compare to throwing on third and 5, even when Luck is struggling on third down. I agree with you on second down, though I think it's a hindsight criticism, but I don't understand your beef with third down.

Because the odds were against him in that spot.  the game and plays had itself created the odds, not the other way around.  If you want to put your players in the best position to be successful, you recognize the the pattern that work.  I got the all of the numbers.  1st down runs worked (especially 1st half , slightly less so second half) in the second half, 2nd down passes were golden.  All game long 3rd down passes were low percentage plays.

 

Here is the runs on 1st down=  

 

1&10- 7 TRich, 1&10- 15 TRich,  1&6- 1 TRich, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 8 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 TRich,End 1stQ  1&10- 1o TRich,  1&10- -3 TRich,  1&10-15 TRich, 1&10-6 TRich, 1&4- 2 TRich End 2ndQ    11 runs for 71 yards in 1st half     6.45 yards per carry on 1st down

 

1&10- 5 TRich, 1&10- 1 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 2 Bradshaw, End 3Q  1&10- 2 Bradshaw, 1&10- 3 Luck, 1&10- 3 TRich, 1&10- 3 TRich, 1&10- 2 Bradshaw, *1&10- 6 TRich*    End of game.    11 Runs for 37 yards in 2nd half   3.36 yards per carry on 1st down

 

 

So my numbers say 1st down runs were effective, so not a bad choice on our last series.  Even though the numbers clearly prove the Eagles clamped down on our run game in the second half.  The fact TRich got the largest gain in the second half on that last series run bears this out.  But second down choice appears to be go to the pass.  Luck was 8 out of 9 for 94 yards. We ran, and lost 1 yard. went against the odds and lost.  then 3rd and 5.  Luck had 3 conversions, and 6 failures to convert on 3rd down.  Now he's in a spot at possible end game situation and the D will pin their ears back and get after him.  You say go against the odds once again and let Luck take a stab at it.  I say the run was working, even if less in second half, and positive yards were achieved quite consistently. I think if we show pass formation on 3rd down and then run it instead we have a better chance of converting  than Luck throwing into a blitz situation with press man coverage on the receivers.

 

I only truky charted about 60% of the data presented here.  The rest I could ascertain from what I saw to what I did chart.  When I went back to fill in the blanks, I pretty much got what I expected and I say it supports my position.  I do not know how you can argue what is in black and white (and Red and Blue ).  But go ahead.  I'm done for now.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Luck was sacked 41 times and hit 105 times under Arians. Last season he was sacked 32 times and was hit 95 times under Pep. So far this season he has only been sacked 3 times in 3 games. That can be looked up at ESPN stats. As you were saying?

I don't quite trust your hits stats.  (sacks is OK)  

 

Even so that sacks +hits  divided by dropbacks using your numbers is -

 

2012 - 23.85%

2013 - 22.28%

 

Looks like there is very little difference.

 

Gavin posted his-

Luck was hit 116 times in 2012.....2nd most in the league

Luck was hit 109 times in 2013.....3rd most in the league

 

And football outsiders had these stats in this article-

"Nobody in the NFL gets knocked to the ground after a pass quite like Andrew Luck. Luck has 78 QB hits through 15 weeks, including plays cancelled by penalty. That's 25 more than any other quarterback in the league, a huge margin. This isn't a one-year thing, either. In his rookie year, Luck had 83 QB hits, which also led the league"

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2013/lets-play-andrew-luck-whack-mole

 

These all show similar hits, and if you add in sacks, 2012 is higher, but then you have to divide by pass attempts which there were 57 more in 2012.  So it turns out the sacks + hits rate is nearly identical in every instance.  So your information is not true.

 

And if your going to use 2014 stats instead (it's only 2 games, BTW) then I'm going to claim Luck is throwing at a higher interception rate with a massively lower yards per attempt than under Arians.  It's too early and bogus comparison right now.

[Malakai432]

Luck has a higher completion %, more yards, more TDs and a higher rating than Tom Brady this year through two games, yes more interceptions but I sure as heck am not worried about him. Colts lost by 10 points to two top teams. Good news is, he gets to go up against the Jags D this Sunday. I think it may be a decent game in the end because the Jags play us tough more often then not, but I do think Luck will have a field day.

I do agree however, I am not a fan of PEP and do foresee this as his last year unless the Colts O turns up the Heat. There is too much talent on this team to not utilize.

[Synthetic]

Every other team in the league without a QB would give anything for Luck.

 

What is the problem? Regressing? Stop looking at stats and worrying so much. He's still young and he's looked great from what I have seen.

 

It's like some of you just want to see a QB throw bombs all day and then scream and shout about it.

 

Luck is the best young QB in the game, you have nothing to complain about.

[Malakai432]

Tom Moore ... "let players decide games, not plays" ..

This is where I have a problem with this coaching staff. They are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Ya, Indy ran well with the JUMBO stuff against the Eagles.. but they will NOT get where they want to be trying this stuff all the time.

That's the problem I have also. They will just continue to push these power formations down other teams throats regardless how talented the D is. They will just continue to over utilize. If they try to run down the Ravens, Bengals, throats like they did the Eagles, I have a bad feeling that will get UGLY. They will still continue to use it though until the Colts have to comeback from 10-20 pts behind lol.

I've heard everyone, even ex Colts players like Marlin Jackson, commentators, sports analyst and more just continue to talk about the overuse of these bunch/power formations but they just continue to try and constantly use them. They either look good or miserably tank but eventually the other team gets the drift. It's like being in a fight and the opponent just keeps throwing haymakers. If one lands, it may stun you, or knock the crap out of you, but it's be very easy to figure out.

[crazycolt1]

I don't quite trust your hits stats.  (sacks is OK)  

 

Even so that sacks +hits  divided by dropbacks using your numbers is -

 

2012 - 23.85%

2013 - 22.28%

 

Looks like there is very little difference.

 

Gavin posted his-

Luck was hit 116 times in 2012.....2nd most in the league

Luck was hit 109 times in 2013.....3rd most in the league

 

And football outsiders had these stats in this article-

"Nobody in the NFL gets knocked to the ground after a pass quite like Andrew Luck. Luck has 78 QB hits through 15 weeks, including plays cancelled by penalty. That's 25 more than any other quarterback in the league, a huge margin. This isn't a one-year thing, either. In his rookie year, Luck had 83 QB hits, which also led the league"

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2013/lets-play-andrew-luck-whack-mole

 

These all show similar hits, and if you add in sacks, 2012 is higher, but then you have to divide by pass attempts which there were 57 more in 2012.  So it turns out the sacks + hits rate is nearly identical in every instance.  So your information is not true.

 

And if your going to use 2014 stats instead (it's only 2 games, BTW) then I'm going to claim Luck is throwing at a higher interception rate with a massively lower yards per attempt than under Arians.  It's too early and bogus comparison right now.

You can twist and turn numbers to almost anything you care to prove or disprove. Add this and take away that? Bottom line he was sacked and hit more during Arians time as head coach. You chose a web site and I chose a different web site. They basically said the same thing. Lets look up the stat that shows how many times Luck was sacked when he wore boxers or briefs the night before the game? As you can see there are all different ways to look and see things but the bottom line is the bottom line.

[Dark_Indy]

Man, these overreaction threads just don't stop.

 

 

You say that, until that damn counter run becomes the "Number 76 reports as eligible" of this year.

[conklincolt]

all we need is to use a whole (all picks) draft or two on a whole new and very good O line and the problems are solved both passing and esp. running.  But     they don't and won't for whatever reason.   for years now same ol same ol same ol  yawn.

[Stoney]

Luck needs coaches that will push and challenge him, he doesnt need inexperienced yes men. Luck doesn't have the temperament to stand up to anyone. He seems way to laid back. Like Eli Manning. Eli had a defense though, Luck does not. I can't imagine Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers or Rivers continuing to hand the ball to trent richardson. I can't imagine them sitting back and just accepting these lackluster gameplans. Luck is way too nice imo. I don't think he has a desire to be the best at his position. I think he's too selfless and needs to be more selfish. But nobody around here listens to me. A Holes get the job done. Nice guys finish last. There is a lot of truth in that imho.

Luck is too nice? Yes men? You couldn't be any more wrong about that and we are all dumber now for reading that.

[Iancolts]

I think Luck has zero control of the offense under this regime. I'm not sure if him throwing most his passes high affected the coaches decision to take the game away from Luck or not. But we will see against the Jags if we do the same thing win or not then we will at least know Luck is a game manager. I got to admit though Luck did not take the pressure from those blitzs to well. And the non call on TY and the call on Landry was nonsense that cost us the game.

[BlueShoe]

Man, these overreaction threads just don't stop.

 

Shame, huh?

 

To watch the reasoning process is a bit like watching some animal, or nature show. 

 

I can imagine this board as a home remodeling TV show. In the first episode, there is small piece of a shingle missing on the roof. Mike, the contractor knows exactly what to do. He paints the basement the same color as the shingles on the roof. "All fixed", he says, as he heads out the door with a twinkle in his eye and an extra skip in his step. A few weeks later Mike receives a call that the roof is still leaking. In Mike's mind, it should be obvious to everyone that painting a basement the same color as the roof, is how you fix a leaky roof. Mike drives to the house to reinspect the leaky roof, and gives it a real good look-over, nearly eyebrow-beating the damn paint on the basement wall. He phones a friend, also in the contractor business. "Dave, I have a problem here man. I painted the basement the exact color of the shingles, even gave it some extra elbow grease, and the damn roof is still leaking. I don't know what to do, and I could really use your assistance with this job."

 

Dave gives the project a good look-over and knows exactly what to do. "Fire the foreman", says Dave, as he swells out his chest with confidence. "The foreman should know how to use the correct tools. He has a flat-head screwdriver and a some sandpaper, and it is obvious that he used the flat head screwdriver to open this can of paint. The Paint comes with the proper opener, and if he did not use the proper opener then he probably did not wash his hands either. The paint is contaminated!"

 

In their whole 6 weeks as contractors, Dave and Mike have never seen anything like it. Dave and Mike proceed to buy new paint, used the correct tool to open the paint can, and also washed their hands. It took two 10-hour days to complete the job. 

 

A few weeks later the owners with a leaky roof attempted to call again, but the contractors figure the problem will be likely be fixed if they just quit answering their phones. 

 

If the basis of the premise is not enough, the logical transitions on this board are astonishing. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

You can twist and turn numbers to almost anything you care to prove or disprove. Add this and take away that? Bottom line he was sacked and hit more during Arians time as head coach. You chose a web site and I chose a different web site. They basically said the same thing. Lets look up the stat that shows how many times Luck was sacked when he wore boxers or briefs the night before the game? As you can see there are all different ways to look and see things but the bottom line is the bottom line.

 

There's no twisting and turning of numbers. these are nearly identical results-

 

2012 - 23.85%     105 Hits + 41 sacks in 627 pass attempts

2013 - 22.28%      95 Hits  + 32 sacks in 570 pass attempts

 

are based off of Your Numbers.  Not Gavin's, nor mine. Yours.  Only a 1.5% difference in the rate.  And if you are saying that you only count the hits + sacks total, nothing else, and do not also account for the number of passes attempted, you are truly spreading a type of disinformation.  Because what this says is Pep gets Luck hit and sacked fewer times only because he doesn't let him throw it as much. Period. If you throw it less, your going to get hit and sacked less.  You'll also have less of all the other passing stats too.

[The Fish]

This thread reminds me why I like to see the Colts win...

 

Ultimately they could have won and didn't, and that causes all of these pontifications and analysis that aren't consistent. Run more, run less, run at the right time-no throw on first down, second down, third down, first down ect.. 

[theomaestro]

I don't think Andrew is regressing but it is clear that his progress has slowed to a stand still. I do fault the coaches for that including Pagano. When you have an Ace and you refuse to work to make him better or change the system to fit his abilities, you are doing that players and the team a great disservice. The buck stops with Pagano. If he can't see that then he needs to go. We already know that is game management skills are poor. If he isn't developing Andrew Luck, then what good is he?

[ColtsBlueFL]

Every other team in the league without a QB would give anything for Luck.

 

What is the problem? Regressing? Stop looking at stats and worrying so much. He's still young and he's looked great from what I have seen.

 

It's like some of you just want to see a QB throw bombs all day and then scream and shout about it.

 

Luck is the best young QB in the game, you have nothing to complain about.

 

Nobody (that has their still attached) is worried about Luck.  What some are watching is how coaching is using Luck.at times.  Luck does not have that confident and loose demeanor as before, and I do not know why.  He looks tight and out of rhythm quite often.  I'd like him to feel comfortable and be able to get in sync quickly, even if his running game is working.  It's only game 2, so hopefully this passes quickly.

[ColtsBlueFL]

This thread reminds me why I like to see the Colts win...

 

Ultimately they could have won and didn't, and that causes all of these pontifications and analysis that aren't consistent. Run more, run less, run at the right time-no throw on first down, second down, third down, first down ect.. 

Don't read then. Nobody is forcing you.

 

Or be productive.  Why didn't we win? What could we have done different to get the victory?  What is your take?   Background noise is as bothersome to me as deep discussion and analysis is to you.

[BrentMc11]

This thread reminds me why I like to see the Colts win...

 

Ultimately they could have won and didn't, and that causes all of these pontifications and analysis that aren't consistent. Run more, run less, run at the right time-no throw on first down, second down, third down, first down ect.. 

You know what they say..."You can lead a fish to water but you can't make em....."  Err...nevermind....I was 'horsin' around

[Jason_]

I don't think Andrew is regressing but it is clear that his progress has slowed to a stand still. I do fault the coaches for that including Pagano. When you have an Ace and you refuse to work to make him better or change the system to fit his abilities, you are doing that players and the team a great disservice. The buck stops with Pagano. If he can't see that then he needs to go. We already know that is game management skills are poor. If he isn't developing Andrew Luck, then what good is he?

 

They are actually doing exactly that, trying to build the offense around Luck's biggest strengths, which are his mobility and play-action passing.  Play-action passing isn't going to work without a viable running game, and as we saw last year with the final 4 teams, 3 of the 4 made it there on the back of their running game.  Denver was the only team in that final 4 that got there by being a spread, air it out type of offense.

 

Also, why would Pagano (a defensive minded coach) be responsible for developing Luck?  Do you think Dungy was responsible for Manning's development?  Um, no.  That would have been the QB coach, which early in his career was Bruce Arians, and the OC Tom Moore.  So it would/should be Pep and Christiansen (who I would have no problem replacing) responsible for Luck's development, although Luck himself plays a major part in that also.  

 

I think Luck has zero control of the offense under this regime. I'm not sure if him throwing most his passes high affected the coaches decision to take the game away from Luck or not. But we will see against the Jags if we do the same thing win or not then we will at least know Luck is a game manager. I got to admit though Luck did not take the pressure from those blitzs to well. And the non call on TY and the call on Landry was nonsense that cost us the game.

 

He hadn't had much control in years 1 or 2, but most rookie QB's and 2nd year QB's don't have much, if any control of the offense.  There was talk all offseason though about how that was going to change this year, and so far Luck has been making adjustments and calling audibles at the LOS in both games.  So, I think you are incorrect.

 

all we need is to use a whole (all picks) draft or two on a whole new and very good O line and the problems are solved both passing and esp. running.  But     they don't and won't for whatever reason.   for years now same ol same ol same ol  yawn.

 

Since coming to the Colts, Grigson has spent the following draft picks on the OL: a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 2 x 7th round picks.  So they are only missing a 1, a 5 and a 6 in order to have spent a whole draft on the OL, but they did use 2 7's so I'm just going to cancel out the 6.  So that leaves a 1 and a 5.  There have only been 2 first round picks selected by Grigson; Luck and Werner.  No way were they going to spend the 2012 1st rounder on anyone other than Luck.  In 2013, there was not an Offensive lineman even close to being the best player available at that time.  Some people would say Larry Warford, but he wasn't selected until the 3rd round so that would tend to make me think that no team had a 1st or 2nd round grade on him.

 

However, there have been plenty of FA offensive linemen brought in as well so they should more than cancel out the 2 picks that are missing to fulfill your request of spending an entire draft on the OL.  What do you know?  Apparently the problem isn't as easy to fix as you thought. ;)

[crazycolt1]

There's no twisting and turning of numbers. these are nearly identical results-

 

2012 - 23.85%     105 Hits + 41 sacks in 627 pass attempts

2013 - 22.28%      95 Hits  + 32 sacks in 570 pass attempts

 

are based off of Your Numbers.  Not Gavin's, nor mine. Yours.  Only a 1.5% difference in the rate.  And if you are saying that you only count the hits + sacks total, nothing else, and do not also account for the number of passes attempted, you are truly spreading a type of disinformation.  Because what this says is Pep gets Luck hit and sacked fewer times only because he doesn't let him throw it as much. Period. If you throw it less, your going to get hit and sacked less.  You'll also have less of all the other passing stats too.

You are correct. If the offensive coordinator is trying to establish the run the result will be the QB is going to be hit and sacked less. Arians did not attempt to protect Luck when he was here. He was pass happy and also put all the receivers out in routes with none left to block for Luck. It did not take a rocket scientist to see that. There was a constant debate right in these forums discussing that problem. I have no clue if you were reading and commenting at that time. There was a huge concern on Lucks health when Arians was the OC and the HC. Passing stats and running stats mean zero if your starting QB is injured on the sidelines just like Palmer of the Cardinals is today.

[The Fish]

Don't read then. Nobody is forcing you.

 

 

Thank god nobody is forcing me to. This place can suffer from the agony of repeat. I gloss over many of these threads as very few have actual information and analysis that's relevant. My take is that some times teams lose close games and fans throw every theory possible at why that is. It's too early in the season for "Luck regressing' threads. It's not "deep discussion", it's just a bunch of b*ing. 

[Superman]

Because the odds were against him in that spot.  the game and plays had itself created the odds, not the other way around.  If you want to put your players in the best position to be successful, you recognize the the pattern that work.  I got the all of the numbers.  1st down runs worked (especially 1st half , slightly less so second half) in the second half, 2nd down passes were golden.  All game long 3rd down passes were low percentage plays.

 

Here is the runs on 1st down=  

 

1&10- 7 TRich, 1&10- 15 TRich,  1&6- 1 TRich, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 8 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 TRich,End 1stQ  1&10- 1o TRich,  1&10- -3 TRich,  1&10-15 TRich, 1&10-6 TRich, 1&4- 2 TRich End 2ndQ    11 runs for 71 yards in 1st half     6.45 yards per carry on 1st down

 

1&10- 5 TRich, 1&10- 1 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 5 Bradshaw, 1&10- 2 Bradshaw, End 3Q  1&10- 2 Bradshaw, 1&10- 3 Luck, 1&10- 3 TRich, 1&10- 3 TRich, 1&10- 2 Bradshaw, *1&10- 6 TRich*    End of game.    11 Runs for 37 yards in 2nd half   3.36 yards per carry on 1st down

 

 

So my numbers say 1st down runs were effective, so not a bad choice on our last series.  Even though the numbers clearly prove the Eagles clamped down on our run game in the second half.  The fact TRich got the largest gain in the second half on that last series run bears this out.  But second down choice appears to be go to the pass.  Luck was 8 out of 9 for 94 yards. We ran, and lost 1 yard. went against the odds and lost.  then 3rd and 5.  Luck had 3 conversions, and 6 failures to convert on 3rd down.  Now he's in a spot at possible end game situation and the D will pin their ears back and get after him.  You say go against the odds once again and let Luck take a stab at it.  I say the run was working, even if less in second half, and positive yards were achieved quite consistently. I think if we show pass formation on 3rd down and then run it instead we have a better chance of converting  than Luck throwing into a blitz situation with press man coverage on the receivers.

 

I only truky charted about 60% of the data presented here.  The rest I could ascertain from what I saw to what I did chart.  When I went back to fill in the blanks, I pretty much got what I expected and I say it supports my position.  I do not know how you can argue what is in black and white (and Red and Blue ).  But go ahead.  I'm done for now.

 

We agree about second down, although I understand why we got caught up in running the ball after a successful first down carry. But yeah, a pass, play action preferably, would have been the best call. Then we wouldn't be talking about third down.

 

What I think we disagree on, although you're correct about Luck's play on third down, is that running the ball on third and 5 would have been better than throwing on third and 5. First of all, the odds throwing on third and 5 aren't the same as throwing on third down overall. As your charting bears out, Luck was 2/4 converting third and 6 or less, up to the play in question. That's different from 33% overall on third down. And the run on third and 5 or more had lower probability of converting than the pass. That's why you let your best player try to make a play, even though he hasn't been great on third down. He's still your best chance.

 

No, your best hitter might not hit a walk-off against the best closer (I don't know that the Eagles defense can be related to a "best" closer, but that's another story), but you still don't ask him to bunt. It just doesn't happen, because you don't take the game out of your best player's hands there just because of odds. Your best player is an odds beater. We've seen Luck shake off a bad start to make a big play at the end of the game a dozen times already.

 

I'm not saying I'd be opposed to a run on third and 5, and I'm not saying that it wouldn't have converted. I'm saying that I'm fine with putting the biggest play of the game on Luck's shoulders. 

[Smash Mouth]

The Colts last drive with 3:25 left and two or three times out left running the ball is just fine, there is no reason to start passing the ball all over the place, nor does the team want to score too quickly.  Those two runs got the Colts into 3rd and 5.  Most Qbs and coaches are happy with 3rd and 5 that should be a high percentage conversion.

I though the run on 1st down was a very good call because the eagle were clearly thinking pass.  Its the second run that I have a problem with. How about going shot gun and with an incompletion , its still 3 and 5.  But pep ran on 2nd down with the unbalanced line - again.  

[ColtsBlueFL]

You are correct. If the offensive coordinator is trying to establish the run the result will be the QB is going to be hit and sacked less. Arians did not attempt to protect Luck when he was here. He was pass happy and also put all the receivers out in routes with none left to block for Luck. It did not take a rocket scientist to see that. There was a constant debate right in these forums discussing that problem. I have no clue if you were reading and commenting at that time. There was a huge concern on Lucks health when Arians was the OC and the HC. Passing stats and running stats mean zero if your starting QB is injured on the sidelines just like Palmer of the Cardinals is today.

 I agree if you pass more, your QB is exposed to more hits, on volume alone if nothing else.  And Arians did have Luck drop back nearly 60 more times than Pep, and toss it further as well.  That does in and of itself expose the QB to injury more. We agree.  It is also true if Pep made Luck throw 60 more times last year, the numbers would have been eerily similar.  So the run game has to be better if we pass less, which we did. So we have an understanding.

[crazycolt1]

 I agree if you pass more, your QB is exposed to more hits, on volume alone if nothing else.  And Arians did have Luck drop back nearly 60 more times than Pep, and toss it further as well.  That does in and of itself expose the QB to injury more. We agree.  It is also true if Pep made Luck throw 60 more times last year, the numbers would have been eerily similar.  So the run game has to be better if we pass less, which we did. So we have an understanding.

Good debate without any insults being thrown! Fantastic!

[ColtsBlueFL]

We agree about second down, although I understand why we got caught up in running the ball after a successful first down carry. But yeah, a pass, play action preferably, would have been the best call. Then we wouldn't be talking about third down.

 

What I think we disagree on, although you're correct about Luck's play on third down, is that running the ball on third and 5 would have been better than throwing on third and 5. First of all, the odds throwing on third and 5 aren't the same as throwing on third down overall. As your charting bears out, Luck was 2/4 converting third and 6 or less, up to the play in question. That's different from 33% overall on third down. And the run on third and 5 or more had lower probability of converting than the pass. That's why you let your best player try to make a play, even though he hasn't been great on third down. He's still your best chance.

 

No, your best hitter might not hit a walk-off against the best closer (I don't know that the Eagles defense can be related to a "best" closer, but that's another story), but you still don't ask him to bunt. It just doesn't happen, because you don't take the game out of your best player's hands there just because of odds. Your best player is an odds beater. We've seen Luck shake off a bad start to make a big play at the end of the game a dozen times already.

 

I'm not saying I'd be opposed to a run on third and 5, and I'm not saying that it wouldn't have converted. I'm saying that I'm fine with putting the biggest play of the game on Luck's shoulders. 

 

I see your point, but to use baseball some more.  depending upon number of outs and number and location of runners, your best hitter doesn't have to hit a HR.  He could hit to the right side if 1 out and a runner on second. Hit a sac fly to bring in a gut at third with 0 or 1 outs.  Get selective and draw a Base on balls  to keep from striking out on a rough day.

 

Here's something to ponder, what if we ran it again and got 4 yards (typical of many of our runs, even though we also got 5 a lot).  4th and 1 with time on the clock and running.  We send Luck to the line to go for it.  Then he does a hard count.  He created 3 neutral zone infractions vs. the Eagles defense, 1 on a 2nd down, 2 on 3rd down.  We might draw them off again and get a first. We might also force them to burn one of their two remaining timeouts.  But I really find it difficult to conceive Philly was totally prepared for us to run, run, run on our last possession.  I'm not convinced.  I think TRich or Bradshaw busts one open there.  Like when we were at the 3 yd vs NE in the AFCCG and Marvin Harrison asks Peyton to run it in, not throw it. Saturday gets key block and Addai runs straight in untouched.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I though the run on 1st down was a very good call because the eagle were clearly thinking pass.  Its the second run that I have a problem with. How about going shot gun and with an incompletion , its still 3 and 5.  But pep ran on 2nd down with the unbalanced line - again.  

 

I think many are liking a 2nd down pass now.  A play action off a run set or something.  The third down is debatable, and we are hashing out scenarios.  We know an Inc. is worst outcome, and that's what happened.  Whether another run there is viable with  any things that can happen after is what is interesting.  Unlike on Inc, if short on the run, the clock runs  (make them burn a time out?) and if close you can fake going for it and draw them off with a hard count. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Good debate without any insults being thrown! Fantastic!

 

I like a good debate, and presenting viewpoints. I learn from the other debaters. I don't get mad if I'm proven wrong or that I misunderstood. I do not relish going of topic and into personal insults.  Too many good folks here.  But we don't have to always agree, either. Just everyone being somewhat civil to a reasonable degree and on topic and I'm fine. 

 

And I f I ever do lose it, deserve to be called out on it.

[Superman]

I see your point, but to use baseball some more.  depending upon number of outs and number and location of runners, your best hitter doesn't have to hit a HR.  He could hit to the right side if 1 out and a runner on second. Hit a sac fly to bring in a gut at third with 0 or 1 outs.  Get selective and draw a Base on balls  to keep from striking out on a rough day.

 

Here's something to ponder, what if we ran it again and got 4 yards (typical of many of our runs, even though we also got 5 a lot).  4th and 1 with time on the clock and running.  We send Luck to the line to go for it.  Then he does a hard count.  He created 3 neutral zone infractions vs. the Eagles defense, 1 on a 2nd down, 2 on 3rd down.  We might draw them off again and get a first. We might also force them to burn one of their two remaining timeouts.  But I really find it difficult to conceive Philly was totally prepared for us to run, run, run on our last possession.  I'm not convinced.  I think TRich or Bradshaw busts one open there.  Like when we were at the 3 yd vs NE in the AFCCG and Marvin Harrison asks Peyton to run it in, not throw it. Saturday gets key block and Addai runs straight in untouched.

 

I see your point, but to use baseball some more.  depending upon number of outs and number and location of runners, your best hitter doesn't have to hit a HR.  He could hit to the right side if 1 out and a runner on second. Hit a sac fly to bring in a gut at third with 0 or 1 outs.  Get selective and draw a Base on balls  to keep from striking out on a rough day.

 

Here's something to ponder, what if we ran it again and got 4 yards (typical of many of our runs, even though we also got 5 a lot).  4th and 1 with time on the clock and running.  We send Luck to the line to go for it.  Then he does a hard count.  He created 3 neutral zone infractions vs. the Eagles defense, 1 on a 2nd down, 2 on 3rd down.  We might draw them off again and get a first. We might also force them to burn one of their two remaining timeouts.  But I really find it difficult to conceive Philly was totally prepared for us to run, run, run on our last possession.  I'm not convinced.  I think TRich or Bradshaw busts one open there.  Like when we were at the 3 yd vs NE in the AFCCG and Marvin Harrison asks Peyton to run it in, not throw it. Saturday gets key block and Addai runs straight in untouched.

 

You still don't have your best hitter bunt. To me, the walk, the sac fly, the traditional sacrifice, etc., those are the equivalent of drawing a penalty, a screen pass, or a quick hitter with YAC. None of those are the equivalent of running on third and 5. To me, that's a bunt, with your best hitter. It might work, and the odds support it, but overwhelmingly, you let your best player have the opportunity to make a play, because that's what he's good at. But I do get your point.

 

On 4th down, I think we try the hard count, but I don't think we go for it. Not at that spot on the field, in a tie game. That's reckless.

 

And yeah, maybe they weren't prepared for run, run, run, but they did get us on second down, so I don't know. 

 

I just think Luck needs to be able to come through for us on third and 5, even when he's not having a great game. He's done it in the past, and I still think he can. To me, the much bigger gripe is on second down, but even then, I get why they tried to run again. If Pagano meant what he said, and wasn't just paying lip service to the idea, then I think we'd handle that situation differently moving forward.

[Gavin]

You still don't have your best hitter bunt. To me, the walk, the sac fly, the traditional sacrifice, etc., those are the equivalent of drawing a penalty, a screen pass, or a quick hitter with YAC. None of those are the equivalent of running on third and 5. To me, that's a bunt, with your best hitter. It might work, and the odds support it, but overwhelmingly, you let your best player have the opportunity to make a play, because that's what he's good at. But I do get your point.

 

On 4th down, I think we try the hard count, but I don't think we go for it. Not at that spot on the field, in a tie game. That's reckless.

 

And yeah, maybe they weren't prepared for run, run, run, but they did get us on second down, so I don't know. 

 

I just think Luck needs to be able to come through for us on third and 5, even when he's not having a great game. He's done it in the past, and I still think he can. To me, the much bigger gripe is on second down, but even then, I get why they tried to run again. If Pagano meant what he said, and wasn't just paying lip service to the idea, then I think we'd handle that situation differently moving forward.

Is it just me or does Pep appear not to promote Sight Adjustment reads in his offense? Because I just don't see it, I read that some offensive coordinators prefer just to have built in hot routes so that it takes away the thinking by the receiver and QB on that particular situation, Because I think there have been lots of times receivers and Luck could sight adjust but really have not done that much at all...and I find it hard that nobody in our receiving corpse can do that....specifically Wayne...and he has shown he can do that before in other offenses, It seems to be a lot of run the play that is called or sometimes changing the play based on what the defensive look is and built in hot routes

[Superman]

Is it just me or does Pep appear not to promote Sight Adjustment reads in his offense? Because I just don't see it, I read that some offensive coordinators prefer just to have built in hot routes so that it takes away the the thinking by the receiver and QB on that particular situation, Because I think there have been lots of times receivers and Luck to sight adjust but really have not done that much at all, It seems to be a lot of run the play that is called or sometimes changing the play based on what the defensive look is

 

Few and far between. I don't think we have enough hot routes, either. 

[Gavin]

Few and far between. I don't think we have enough hot routes, either. 

Very frustrating cause I watch games at times and I see Corners line 7-8 yards off of TY or Wayne at times and Im screaming in my head THROW THE SLANT! THROW THE SLANT! Because if that was timed right with TY he would likely be going a longgggggg way especially if he made the Safety miss in open field

[Iancolts]

I don't think we are over reacting in any way just our opinion. I can see why people say when we win the boards are full of topics of how good we are etc... But from what I've seen so far from our beloved colts is we are at a stand still with Luck. Our defense is no where near it should be with all the cap space we had. Our offense is a copy cat of Stanford/49ers. We are who we are!!!