Trent Dilfer on Luck and the Colts O so far this season

[Track Guy]

I agree with his assessment 100% and I thought his comments on the Chip Kelly offense were also really interesting http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11539097&ex_cid=espnapi_public

[sfergson727]

Agree also.

[BrentMc11]

Trent Dilfer has a new job outside of broadcasting....here he is

 

[HungarianColtsFan]

Trent Dilfer has a new job outside of broadcasting....here he is

 

 

 

The next great mentalist...

[IndyD4U]

Sounds spot on to me!

[BrentMc11]

The next great mentalist...

I think we should put Dilfer and Steve Young in with Cam on Modern Family....already a picture with him....

 

[BrentMc11]

Andrew, just go out next week and throw 5 touchdowns instead of 3.  Lets throw the ball every time so that you are great and posters can say we have no run game.  Let us never have a balanced offense.  Let us throw to receivers who cannot get open...Amen

[Somewhere ovr the Waynebow]

Can't get it to play for some reason, can someone give me a quick summary of what he said about Luck?

[CroatianColtsFan21]

A transcript or just a short summary would be nice, thanks...

[SteelCityColt]

Can't get it to play for some reason, can someone give me a quick summary of what he said about Luck?

 

 

A transcript or just a short summary would be nice, thanks...

 

+1

 

Yeah I can't hear it so if someone can summarise what the points were I'd appreciate it! 

[DougDew]

What I gathered from the audio is that Dilfer says Luck is being tentative because he doesn't trust what the team is trying to do on offense.....and that the offense hasn't figured out their identity yet. 

 

He also mentions that the skilled position players don't really complement each other.  Whereas TY is the quick elusive reciver, there really isn't the physical receiver that gives a consistent shorter option....he was specifically refering to the TEs.  Most teams have that bailout TE, and the Colts TEs seem to be something different.

 

He also said that as much praise as Luck gets, no ones realizes that he ranks 30th out of 35 QBs over the past two years in completion percentage of passes over 30 yards.  He singled out the Oline has not providing good protection, and that the OL can't go 5 on 4 or 5 on 5 without getting beat fairly quickly.

 

I wont bother with the Philly summary.

[Somewhere ovr the Waynebow]

What I gathered from the audio is that Dilfer says Luck is being tentative because he doesn't trust what the team is trying to do on offense.....and that the offense hasn't figured out their identity yet. 

 

He also mentions that the skilled position players don't really complement each other.  Whereas TY is the quick elusive reciver, there really isn't the physical receiver that gives a consistent shorter option....he was specifically refering to the TEs.  Most teams have that bailout TE, and the Colts TEs seem to be something different.

 

He also said that as much praise as Luck gets, no ones realizes that he ranks 30th out of 35 QBs over the past two years in completion percentage of passes over 30 yards.  He singled out the Oline has not providing good protection, and that the OL can't go 5 on 4 or 5 on 5 without getting beat fairly quickly.

 

I wont bother with the Philly summary

 

I disagree with Dilfer on several points. I do believe that the Colts have plenty of weapons. Wayne, Hilton, Nicks, Allen. To a lesser extent Fleener, Whalen, Moncrief, Bradshaw/Richardson (lesser extent in the passing game). Lack of diversity isn't an issue. Allen and Nicks immediately come to my mind as physical options. The lack of trust is simply not true. Luck has been in this system with Pep for quite awhile, so I don't feel like that holds any merit. 

 

I will agree with him that the offense is still trying to figure out who it is. This team can pass for a lot of yards. They can run for a lot of yards (Evidenced in the eagles game.) They are deep at receiver and have quality tight ends. Who do you focus the offensive identity on? That's a tough question.

 

His point about the offensive line is true. I think that plays a huge factor in why that completion rate over 30 yards is so low. He doesn't have time to wait for those longer routes to develop, the pocket collapses, and he forces it. A lot of times Philly blitzed so it was 5 on 5 or 6 on 6 (with a RB blocking) and we lost almost every time. We should be able to hold those long enough for Luck to find someone for a first down.  

 

And.....Luck has just not been himself totally these past couple games. I don't see anyway around that right now. I'm not sure why or what the answer is. Could just be he is a young QB who is still learning everything, and this is the first time it's truly manifest itself. Not that he has been bad at all. Never seen him slam his helmet the way he did in the Broncos game.

[Superman]

Yeah, I disagree with Dilfer here, and I generally like Dilfer's analysis.

 

First, we have plenty of weapons on offense.

 

Second, the offensive line hasn't been the issue with Luck's passing, his timing, etc. The pressures have come after an initial period of time where the QB has opportunities to scan the field, and then bail out if he wishes. Luck needs to get on the move. Maybe the play calling needs to do more to encourage him to get on the move, but he's averse to taking off with the ball, and that's a problem. The 3rd down pass that went to Bradshaw where he got stopped on the 1 yard line, that's a play where Luck could have run the ball in. We got the TD on 4th down, but we shouldn't have been on third down. Luck needs to make his decisions more quickly.

 

Third, this idea that Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy -- this offense that he grew up in at Stanford, with guys that he's been working with for years -- is entirely conjecture. If Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy, that's his issue, and as the QB, he needs to either buy in or make plays on his own. We can't excuse Luck's hesitation and poorly timed throws because he doesn't like the concepts. He has more sway than any other player on the roster, if he wants something adjusted, he can get it adjusted. If he isn't finding anyone open -- and there have been open players, by the way, he's just not seeing them, like the pass that he tried to force to Reggie on the first FG drive, when Bradshaw was wide open in the right flat and would have run for a first down -- then he needs to use his legs.

 

We need Luck to be the great QB that he's shown he can be. Can't keep making up excuses for his substandard play so far. His reads have been off, his throws have been late or slightly off-target, he's missed opportunities to run the football, etc. Dilfer said good QBs diagnose the situation and take the short completions to establish a rhythm, then they start feeling invincible. Luck has to take those easy ones, and he has to make those easy throws. He also needs to use his legs more. Those two things will stress defenses more than anything the coaches can do, more than adding any player will, and aside from more play action, there is no schematic adjustment or offensive wrinkle that will make our offense better than Luck can just by playing better.

 

TL;DR? Luck has to play better. No excuses.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Yeah, I disagree with Dilfer here, and I generally like Dilfer's analysis.

First, we have plenty of weapons on offense.

Second, the offensive line hasn't been the issue with Luck's passing, his timing, etc. The pressures have come after an initial period of time where the QB has opportunities to scan the field, and then bail out if he wishes. Luck needs to get on the move. Maybe the play calling needs to do more to encourage him to get on the move, but he's averse to taking off with the ball, and that's a problem. The 3rd down pass that went to Bradshaw where he got stopped on the 1 yard line, that's a play where Luck could have run the ball in. We got the TD on 4th down, but we shouldn't have been on third down. Luck needs to make his decisions more quickly.

Third, this idea that Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy -- this offense that he grew up in at Stanford, with guys that he's been working with for years -- is entirely conjecture. If Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy, that's his issue, and as the QB, he needs to either buy in or make plays on his own. We can't excuse Luck's hesitation and poorly timed throws because he doesn't like the concepts. He has more sway than any other player on the roster, if he wants something adjusted, he can get it adjusted. If he isn't finding anyone open -- and there have been open players, by the way, he's just not seeing them, like the pass that he tried to force to Reggie on the first FG drive, when Bradshaw was wide open in the right flat and would have run for a first down -- then he needs to use his legs.

We need Luck to be the great QB that he's shown he can be. Can't keep making up excuses for his substandard play so far. His reads have been off, his throws have been late or slightly off-target, he's missed opportunities to run the football, etc. Dilfer said good QBs diagnose the situation and take the short completions to establish a rhythm, then they start feeling invincible. Luck has to take those easy ones, and he has to make those easy throws. He also needs to use his legs more. Those two things will stress defenses more than anything the coaches can do, more than adding any player will, and aside from more play action, there is no schematic adjustment or offensive wrinkle that will make our offense better than Luck can just by playing better.

TL;DR? Luck has to play better. No excuses.

Well, the eagles contined to send tge same blitz at the guards and center, so they saw something and were able to get pressure when needed

[Superman]

Well, the eagles contined to send tge same blitz at the guards and center, so they saw something and were able to get pressure when needed

 

They got 4 pressures on 38 dropbacks. 

[akcolt]

Well, the eagles contined to send tge same blitz at the guards and center, so they saw something and were able to get pressure when needed

They should create a position that totally concentrates on the offense who picks up on these things throughout the game and changes the calls or blitz pick ups or I don't know a middle screen or moves the pocket things like that.

 

I think we should call it an Offensive Coordinator.

[Superman]

They should create a position that totally concentrates on the offense who picks up on these things throughout the game and changes the calls or blitz pick ups or I don't know a middle screen or moves the pocket things like that.

 

I think we should call it an Offensive Coordinator.

 

They got 4 pressures on 38 dropbacks.

 

How many throws did Luck miss? How many open receivers did he miss? How many chances to run did he pass on? More than 4 out of 38?

[TKnight24]

Yeah, I disagree with Dilfer here, and I generally like Dilfer's analysis.

First, we have plenty of weapons on offense.

Second, the offensive line hasn't been the issue with Luck's passing, his timing, etc. The pressures have come after an initial period of time where the QB has opportunities to scan the field, and then bail out if he wishes. Luck needs to get on the move. Maybe the play calling needs to do more to encourage him to get on the move, but he's averse to taking off with the ball, and that's a problem. The 3rd down pass that went to Bradshaw where he got stopped on the 1 yard line, that's a play where Luck could have run the ball in. We got the TD on 4th down, but we shouldn't have been on third down. Luck needs to make his decisions more quickly.

Third, this idea that Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy -- this offense that he grew up in at Stanford, with guys that he's been working with for years -- is entirely conjecture. If Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy, that's his issue, and as the QB, he needs to either buy in or make plays on his own. We can't excuse Luck's hesitation and poorly timed throws because he doesn't like the concepts. He has more sway than any other player on the roster, if he wants something adjusted, he can get it adjusted. If he isn't finding anyone open -- and there have been open players, by the way, he's just not seeing them, like the pass that he tried to force to Reggie on the first FG drive, when Bradshaw was wide open in the right flat and would have run for a first down -- then he needs to use his legs.

We need Luck to be the great QB that he's shown he can be. Can't keep making up excuses for his substandard play so far. His reads have been off, his throws have been late or slightly off-target, he's missed opportunities to run the football, etc. Dilfer said good QBs diagnose the situation and take the short completions to establish a rhythm, then they start feeling invincible. Luck has to take those easy ones, and he has to make those easy throws. He also needs to use his legs more. Those two things will stress defenses more than anything the coaches can do, more than adding any player will, and aside from more play action, there is no schematic adjustment or offensive wrinkle that will make our offense better than Luck can just by playing better.

TL;DR? Luck has to play better. No excuses.

I disagree with Dilfer on several points. I do believe that the Colts have plenty of weapons. Wayne, Hilton, Nicks, Allen. To a lesser extent Fleener, Whalen, Moncrief, Bradshaw/Richardson (lesser extent in the passing game). Lack of diversity isn't an issue. Allen and Nicks immediately come to my mind as physical options. The lack of trust is simply not true. Luck has been in this system with Pep for quite awhile, so I don't feel like that holds any merit.

I will agree with him that the offense is still trying to figure out who it is. This team can pass for a lot of yards. They can run for a lot of yards (Evidenced in the eagles game.) They are deep at receiver and have quality tight ends. Who do you focus the offensive identity on? That's a tough question.

His point about the offensive line is true. I think that plays a huge factor in why that completion rate over 30 yards is so low. He doesn't have time to wait for those longer routes to develop, the pocket collapses, and he forces it. A lot of times Philly blitzed so it was 5 on 5 or 6 on 6 (with a RB blocking) and we lost almost every time. We should be able to hold those long enough for Luck to find someone for a first down.

And.....Luck has just not been himself totally these past couple games. I don't see anyway around that right now. I'm not sure why or what the answer is. Could just be he is a young QB who is still learning everything, and this is the first time it's truly manifest itself. Not that he has been bad at all. Never seen him slam his helmet the way he did in the Broncos game.

Just cause he basically grew up in the offense doesn't mean anything. You can lose trust in sustained routines

Just like in relationships you sometimes lose the spark after awhile.

I personally believe Andrew seemed more confident in Arians offense and he was only a rookie then. Luck wants the ball in his hands, Pep's offense isn't for that.

We can still air it out and have a running game. Packers do it, Saints do it, Denver does it...... Etc Etc

You play to your strengths. The talent in the passing game far outweighs the RB's

2 SB Winning WR's

1 WR who's emerged as a playmaker in the NFL

And 2 Young WR's who one has solid hands and the other is a rookie still learning the ropes

We should be throwing the ball 35-45 times a game with the receiving corps we have and that's me not even mentioning the TE's

But, that's just my opinion

[GoColts00]

They should create a position that totally concentrates on the offense who picks up on these things throughout the game and changes the calls or blitz pick ups or I don't know a middle screen or moves the pocket things like that.

 

I think we should call it an Offensive Coordinator.

There were times in the game that I felt Andrew should have called an audible b/c the Blitz was that apparent. Instead, the Colts just ran the play that Pep wanted. I don't know the internal dynamic that Pagano/Pep/Luck have on Luck's ability to audible, but something definitely needs to change in that aspect. I can't blame 100% of Poor performance on Pep IF Luck is "allowed" to audible to a different play that would succeed. There seems to be too many times where we could/should Pass but instead we Run. Or we try and Run when we should Pass or Play-Action off the Run. 

[TKnight24]

There were times in the game that I felt Andrew should have called an audible b/c the Blitz was that apparent. Instead, the Colts just ran the play that Pep wanted. I don't know the internal dynamic that Pagano/Pep/Luck have on Luck's ability to audible, but something definitely needs to change in that aspect. I can't blame 100% of Poor performance on Pep IF Luck is "allowed" to audible to a different play that would succeed. There seems to be too many times where we could/should Pass but instead we Run. Or we try and Run when we should Pass or Play-Action off the Run.

I really don't think Luck can audible. I really believe when he says "Kill" or "Let It Roll" it's just a dummy audible

There's no way being in his 3rd year that he shouldn't be running the show given what he's shown when they do give him the keys in the 2min drills

[Somewhere ovr the Waynebow]

Just cause he basically grew up in the offense doesn't mean anything. You can lose trust in sustained routines

Just like in relationships you sometimes lose the spark after awhile.

I personally believe Andrew seemed more confident in Arians offense and he was only a rookie then. Luck wants the ball in his hands, Pep's offense isn't for that.

We can still air it out and have a running game. Packers do it, Saints do it, Denver does it...... Etc Etc

You play to your strengths. The talent in the passing game far outweighs the RB's

2 SB Winning WR's

1 WR who's emerged as a playmaker in the NFL

And 2 Young WR's who one has solid hands and the other is a rookie still learning the ropes

We should be throwing the ball 35-45 times a game with the receiving corps we have and that's me not even mentioning the TE's

But, that's just my opinion

 

 

Good point about the losing trust, I hadn't thought of it that way. Although I don't think that's necessarily what's happening, I do admit it's a possibility.

 

Totally agree with you on Arians. No doubt he was a great O coach.

 

I do agree that we should throw it a lot, but let's admit it was great to be able to see the team run the way they did against the Eagles. If it's hot, then I say stay with it. Also, I think it was the right call of the Eagles game because Luck was a little off but more so it gave the D time to rest so they could (presumably...) stop the Eagle's O.

[TKnight24]

Good point about the losing trust, I hadn't thought of it that way. Although I don't think that's necessarily what's happening, I do admit it's a possibility.

Totally agree with you on Arians. No doubt he was a great O coach.

I do agree that we should throw it a lot, but let's admit it was great to be able to see the team run the way they did against the Eagles. If it's hot, then I say stay with it. Also, I think it was the right call of the Eagles game because Luck was a little off but more so it gave the D time to rest so they could (presumably...) stop the Eagle's O.

Yeah it was cool to see a running game, but that was a gift & a curse

The curse was Pep running it then throwing the ball on 3rd leading to the pick. Got too cocky or as the elders say "Got too big for your britches (spellcheck)" lol

Throwing the ball to set up the run is more efficient given the RB's we have. If we have the safeties playing 10 yards off the ball and get Bradshaw & Richardson one on one against DB's, we'll win that battle 9/10 times

[Somewhere ovr the Waynebow]

Yeah it was cool to see a running game, but that was a gift & a curse

The curse was Pep running it then throwing the ball on 3rd leading to the pick. Got too cocky or as the elders say "Got too big for your britches (spellcheck)" lol

Throwing the ball to set up the run is more efficient given the RB's we have. If we have the safeties playing 10 yards off the ball and get Bradshaw & Richardson one on one against DB's, we'll win that battle 9/10 times

 

Agreed. And I think part of the issue is we didn't run the ball on third down. We had a few 3rd and 2 and such that I would have liked to see us run, especially in the first half. The Eagles knew we were going to throw on third down no matter what the distance. Thus they blitzed.

 

I was okay with running so much in the first half, it took too long to adjust in the second. We should have, as you said, threw the ball to set up the run in the second half.

[Superman]

Yeah it was cool to see a running game, but that was a gift & a curse

The curse was Pep running it then throwing the ball on 3rd leading to the pick. Got too cocky or as the elders say "Got too big for your britches (spellcheck)" lol

Throwing the ball to set up the run is more efficient given the RB's we have. If we have the safeties playing 10 yards off the ball and get Bradshaw & Richardson one on one against DB's, we'll win that battle 9/10 times

 

So, don't run on first and 10, but don't throw on 3rd and 9?

 

Up is down, black is white, right is wrong... 

[TKnight24]

So, don't run on first and 10, but don't throw on 3rd and 9?

Up is down, black is white, right is wrong...

Don't throw on 3rd and 9 when a chance for you to go up by 10 with 4mins left in the game is there

Any OC with common sense would've known that

If you ran the 1st 2 downs.... Why throw when they're expecting you to? Makes no sense

[Superman]

Don't throw on 3rd and 9 when a chance for you to go up by 10 with 4mins left in the game is there

Any OC with common sense would've known that

If you ran the 1st 2 downs.... Why throw when they're expecting you to? Makes no sense

 

That's so ridiculous. That was an 8 play drive. The first set of downs, we ran on 1st and 2nd, then passed for a conversion on 3rd. The second set of downs, we ran on 1st, then passed on 2nd. You run a sequence that results in 3rd and long, that's when you throw the ball. 

 

I am 100% certain that if we called a run in that situation, you would be here talking about how we're playing not to lose instead of playing win.

 

Why throw when they're expecting you to? Really??? Do you really think NFL play calling is about tricking the defense? You only throw when they expect you to run, and you only run when they expect you to run? You throw when they expect you to because you have a good QB who should be able to make plays on 3rd and 9, a situation in which an NFL team is going to throw the ball 80% of the time.

[TKnight24]

That's so ridiculous. That was an 8 play drive. The first set of downs, we ran on 1st and 2nd, then passed for a conversion on 3rd. The second set of downs, we ran on 1st, then passed on 2nd. You run a sequence that results in 3rd and long, that's when you throw the ball.

I am 100% certain that if we called a run in that situation, you would be here talking about how we're playing not to lose instead of playing win.

Why throw when they're expecting you to? Really??? Do you really think NFL play calling is about tricking the defense? You only throw when they expect you to run, and you only run when they expect you to run? You throw when they expect you to because you have a good QB who should be able to make plays on 3rd and 9, a situation in which an NFL team is going to throw the ball 80% of the time.

Nope, should've ran it. Have some faith in your defense & give them motivation

Defense would be more inspired holding onto a 10 point lead with 3:30 left in the game than they would trying to stop a game tying TD

No matter how you slice it, it was a dumb call from Pep. Blown missed call or not, should've never been in Luck's hand in that situation

And definitely shouldn't have been Trent running when Bradshaw had the hot hand. It was bad calls all over from Pep

[Johnny Bui]

CAN SOMEONE GET THIS MAN A SANDWICH!

[OffensivelyPC]

Nope, should've ran it. Have some faith in your defense & give them motivation

Defense would be more inspired holding onto a 10 point lead with 3:30 left in the game than they would trying to stop a game tying TD

No matter how you slice it, it was a dumb call from Pep. Blown missed call or not, should've never been in Luck's hand in that situation

And definitely shouldn't have been Trent running when Bradshaw had the hot hand. It was bad calls all over from Pep

Meh.  In hindsight, we maybe should have run the ball.  But in that moment, I didn't necessarily have a problem with the called play.  You couldn't have predicted the play going down any better than you could have predicted Trent fumbling the ball on the next series.  I suppose we could have kneeled, but that would have brought more criticism than running or passing.  In the moment, you do what you can to win.  And had we completed a pass that would have netted us a first down and later scored a TD off of it, we would have been up 14 instead of 10, not to mention we would have run even more time off the clock.  Just because a play didn't work out and you could have done it differently if you could go back in time, that doesn't mean it was a bad call altogether.  It just didn't work out, and unfortunately, it didn't work out in the worst way.  That's the breaks of the game.  If we ran, we could have fumbled.

[DougDew]

Yeah, I disagree with Dilfer here, and I generally like Dilfer's analysis.

 

First, we have plenty of weapons on offense.

 

Second, the offensive line hasn't been the issue with Luck's passing, his timing, etc. The pressures have come after an initial period of time where the QB has opportunities to scan the field, and then bail out if he wishes. Luck needs to get on the move. Maybe the play calling needs to do more to encourage him to get on the move, but he's averse to taking off with the ball, and that's a problem. The 3rd down pass that went to Bradshaw where he got stopped on the 1 yard line, that's a play where Luck could have run the ball in. We got the TD on 4th down, but we shouldn't have been on third down. Luck needs to make his decisions more quickly.

 

Third, this idea that Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy -- this offense that he grew up in at Stanford, with guys that he's been working with for years -- is entirely conjecture. If Luck doesn't trust the offensive philosophy, that's his issue, and as the QB, he needs to either buy in or make plays on his own. We can't excuse Luck's hesitation and poorly timed throws because he doesn't like the concepts. He has more sway than any other player on the roster, if he wants something adjusted, he can get it adjusted. If he isn't finding anyone open -- and there have been open players, by the way, he's just not seeing them, like the pass that he tried to force to Reggie on the first FG drive, when Bradshaw was wide open in the right flat and would have run for a first down -- then he needs to use his legs.

 

We need Luck to be the great QB that he's shown he can be. Can't keep making up excuses for his substandard play so far. His reads have been off, his throws have been late or slightly off-target, he's missed opportunities to run the football, etc. Dilfer said good QBs diagnose the situation and take the short completions to establish a rhythm, then they start feeling invincible. Luck has to take those easy ones, and he has to make those easy throws. He also needs to use his legs more. Those two things will stress defenses more than anything the coaches can do, more than adding any player will, and aside from more play action, there is no schematic adjustment or offensive wrinkle that will make our offense better than Luck can just by playing better.

 

TL;DR? Luck has to play better. No excuses.

To the bolded:  I think Dilfer's comments were not so much about the lack of weapons, but that the receiver weapons are all kind of the same guy.  I kind of see his point.  Wayne is coming off injury so he is left off here...but Nicks, Fleener, and Rogers and to the extent that Moncriefs attribute is tremendous speed, are all down the field guys.  They are guys that I would expect to catch a 15 yard completion...not really a 3rd and 5 conversion.  Perhaps Allen is the short yardage physical receiver, but may also be asked to block too much and is not really in the pattern.

 

Or maybe a Whalen needs to come in and be the guy who fills the area that's vacated by an oncoming blitzer.  A possession receiver.

[throwing BBZ]

I disagree with Dilfer on several points. I do believe that the Colts have plenty of weapons. Wayne, Hilton, Nicks, Allen. To a lesser extent Fleener, Whalen, Moncrief, Bradshaw/Richardson (lesser extent in the passing game). Lack of diversity isn't an issue. Allen and Nicks immediately come to my mind as physical options. The lack of trust is simply not true. Luck has been in this system with Pep for quite awhile, so I don't feel like that holds any merit. 

 

I will agree with him that the offense is still trying to figure out who it is. This team can pass for a lot of yards. They can run for a lot of yards (Evidenced in the eagles game.) They are deep at receiver and have quality tight ends. Who do you focus the offensive identity on? That's a tough question.

 

His point about the offensive line is true. I think that plays a huge factor in why that completion rate over 30 yards is so low. He doesn't have time to wait for those longer routes to develop, the pocket collapses, and he forces it. A lot of times Philly blitzed so it was 5 on 5 or 6 on 6 (with a RB blocking) and we lost almost every time. We should be able to hold those long enough for Luck to find someone for a first down.  

 

And.....Luck has just not been himself totally these past couple games. I don't see anyway around that right now. I'm not sure why or what the answer is. Could just be he is a young QB who is still learning everything, and this is the first time it's truly manifest itself. Not that he has been bad at all. Never seen him slam his helmet the way he did in the Broncos game.

 

 Luck has been himself. These were just good teams.

[SkyBane]

Nope, should've ran it. Have some faith in your defense & give them motivation

Defense would be more inspired holding onto a 10 point lead with 3:30 left in the game than they would trying to stop a game tying TD

No matter how you slice it, it was a dumb call from Pep. Blown missed call or not, should've never been in Luck's hand in that situation

And definitely shouldn't have been Trent running when Bradshaw had the hot hand. It was bad calls all over from Pep

Okay wow, I've sworn to abstain from the Pep Hamilton headhunt, but this post impressed me enough to actually comment.

 

1: Have some faith in a defense that was utterly gassed by a Philadelphia offense designed specifically to gas defenses and then grind them even further in to pulp by running rampant on them? Hint: This is a big reason why Sproles exploded. Motivation is also nebulous and not something you should ever base strategic gameplanning around.

 

2: "Inspired Defense". This seems to be the entire crux of your argument for the post. I posit to you this food for thought: if your defense can't get hyped to seal the game themselves with a big stop or turnover, what the flying hell are they going to get inspired for? This is just lazy logic.

 

3: You place the full blame on Pep, when Luck was having an off game and this was a game management situation. You know who largely makes game management calls? The head coach. That would mean your beef here is not with Pep, but with Chuck Pagano

 

4: Lot's of things go in to personnel decisions. Bradshaw is an old man as far as RB's go, and he ran hard all game. Aside from the (admittedly awful) fumbles, Richardson actually had been gashing the Eagles all night just as hard as Bradshaw had, and having far less miles, his legs were probably fresher.

 

Overall the amount of hyperbole and misunderstanding of actual strategic playcalling and lack of understanding of how a game. If you want to criticize Hamilton, do it for the things he actually did wrong, like not designing more plays to take advantage of a weak Eagles secondary, or adjusting to play action for big chunks once they caught on to the offbalance counter play we had been running with success.

 

Your post is full of emotion and lacks semblance of fact or logic.

[SkyBane]

To the bolded:  I think Dilfer's comments were not so much about the lack of weapons, but that the receiver weapons are all kind of the same guy.  I kind of see his point.  Wayne is coming off injury so he is left off here...but Nicks, Fleener, and Rogers and to the extent that Moncriefs attribute is tremendous speed, are all down the field guys.  They are guys that I would expect to catch a 15 yard completion...not really a 3rd and 5 conversion.  Perhaps Allen is the short yardage physical receiver, but may also be asked to block too much and is not really in the pattern.

 

Or maybe a Whalen needs to come in and be the guy who fills the area that's vacated by an oncoming blitzer.  A possession receiver.

This was precisely Dilfer's point. It was about variety of weapons, not volume. He sees Indy has having too much of the same thing.

[DougDew]

I disagree with Dilfer on several points. I do believe that the Colts have plenty of weapons. Wayne, Hilton, Nicks, Allen. To a lesser extent Fleener, Whalen, Moncrief, Bradshaw/Richardson (lesser extent in the passing game). Lack of diversity isn't an issue. Allen and Nicks immediately come to my mind as physical options. The lack of trust is simply not true. Luck has been in this system with Pep for quite awhile, so I don't feel like that holds any merit. 

 

I will agree with him that the offense is still trying to figure out who it is. This team can pass for a lot of yards. They can run for a lot of yards (Evidenced in the eagles game.) They are deep at receiver and have quality tight ends. Who do you focus the offensive identity on? That's a tough question.

 

His point about the offensive line is true. I think that plays a huge factor in why that completion rate over 30 yards is so low. He doesn't have time to wait for those longer routes to develop, the pocket collapses, and he forces it. A lot of times Philly blitzed so it was 5 on 5 or 6 on 6 (with a RB blocking) and we lost almost every time. We should be able to hold those long enough for Luck to find someone for a first down.  

 

And.....Luck has just not been himself totally these past couple games. I don't see anyway around that right now. I'm not sure why or what the answer is. Could just be he is a young QB who is still learning everything, and this is the first time it's truly manifest itself. Not that he has been bad at all. Never seen him slam his helmet the way he did in the Broncos game.

See my response to Superman about the lack of diversity in the receiver corps.  I kinda agree with Dilfer.  To this point, I don't think any of our receivers have been coached to take on the possession role, or shorter route role, which they probably could be.....I think they have been treated like down the field guys.

 

I think Philly was blizting up the middle and Mewhort, Shipley, and Thornton handled it just fine.  Pressure was not the issue in the passing game.....this time.....IMO.

[akcolt]

Meh.  In hindsight, we maybe should have run the ball.  But in that moment, I didn't necessarily have a problem with the called play.  You couldn't have predicted the play going down any better than you could have predicted Trent fumbling the ball on the next series.  I suppose we could have kneeled, but that would have brought more criticism than running or passing.  In the moment, you do what you can to win.  And had we completed a pass that would have netted us a first down and later scored a TD off of it, we would have been up 14 instead of 10, not to mention we would have run even more time off the clock.  Just because a play didn't work out and you could have done it differently if you could go back in time, that doesn't mean it was a bad call altogether.  It just didn't work out, and unfortunately, it didn't work out in the worst way.  That's the breaks of the game.  If we ran, we could have fumbled.

I don't mind passing in that situation I would have run the ball but if you are going to pass you go with something safe. A great call would have been a screen the D line was coming gives you a good shot a the first down if its not there Luck throws it in the ground. We kick the fg.

[braveheartcolt]

Some decent points across this thread, but give the fella a chance. Two games in, a virtually new set of players and we are jumping on him like he is Matt Schaub. He has a few allegedly easier games, which might just reignite his confidence and his magic.

Just sometimes, good opposition makes it a little hard to be perfect.

[throwing BBZ]

Just cause he basically grew up in the offense doesn't mean anything. You can lose trust in sustained routines

Just like in relationships you sometimes lose the spark after awhile.

I personally believe Andrew seemed more confident in Arians offense and he was only a rookie then. Luck wants the ball in his hands, Pep's offense isn't for that.

We can still air it out and have a running game. Packers do it, Saints do it, Denver does it...... Etc Etc

You play to your strengths. The talent in the passing game far outweighs the RB's

2 SB Winning WR's

1 WR who's emerged as a playmaker in the NFL

And 2 Young WR's who one has solid hands and the other is a rookie still learning the ropes

We should be throwing the ball 35-45 times a game with the receiving corps we have and that's me not even mentioning the TE's

But, that's just my opinion

 

 Of course Andrew liked Arians offense. He could just throw it deep and high and pray we get it, as receivers were running open underneath right in front of him.

 But what we see over and over is Andrew can`t consistently throw a shorter pass accurately. Late, to the wrong shoulder time after time. I twinge when he throws a ball over the middle as it is Always late, high and a candidate for coming off the hands and available. Ya, he should be uncomfortable just like me watching this over and over.

[throwing BBZ]

Okay wow, I've sworn to abstain from the Pep Hamilton headhunt, but this post impressed me enough to actually comment.

 

1: Have some faith in a defense that was utterly gassed by a Philadelphia offense designed specifically to gas defenses and then grind them even further in to pulp by running rampant on them? Hint: This is a big reason why Sproles exploded. Motivation is also nebulous and not something you should ever base strategic gameplanning around.

 

2: "Inspired Defense". This seems to be the entire crux of your argument for the post. I posit to you this food for thought: if your defense can't get hyped to seal the game themselves with a big stop or turnover, what the flying hell are they going to get inspired for? This is just lazy logic.

 

3: You place the full blame on Pep, when Luck was having an off game and this was a game management situation. You know who largely makes game management calls? The head coach. That would mean your beef here is not with Pep, but with Chuck Pagano

 

4: Lot's of things go in to personnel decisions. Bradshaw is an old man as far as RB's go, and he ran hard all game. Aside from the (admittedly awful) fumbles, Richardson actually had been gashing the Eagles all night just as hard as Bradshaw had, and having far less miles, his legs were probably fresher.

 

Overall the amount of hyperbole and misunderstanding of actual strategic playcalling and lack of understanding of how a game. If you want to criticize Hamilton, do it for the things he actually did wrong, like not designing more plays to take advantage of a weak Eagles secondary, or adjusting to play action for big chunks once they caught on to the offbalance counter play we had been running with success.

 

Your post is full of emotion and lacks semblance of fact or logic.

 

 The kid don`t know FB. But IS a Great Colts fan. Go Colts!

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

They got 4 pressures on 38 dropbacks.

4? It seemed like way more than that. I need to watch the gm again. I consider pressures pushing the interior of the line back far enough to make Luck move. Maybe the official stats are different.

And thats another thing Luck ddoes that I hate. He will sit in the povket staring downfield for way too long. He needs to move the pocket more imo. Thats what Russell Wilson has mastered.

[CroatianColtsFan21]

I really don't think Luck can audible. I really believe when he says "Kill" or "Let It Roll" it's just a dummy audible

There's no way being in his 3rd year that he shouldn't be running the show given what he's shown when they do give him the keys in the 2min drills

 

wait a minute... are you saying he isn't capable or isn't allowed to audible??

 

in any case, i recall reading this offseason/preseason about our coaches talking how much better andrew's command of the offense is this year and how he'll be coming to the los with 6 plays to choose from, based on what the defense is showing.. is that not an audible??