Can we run the ball? Please?

[Coffeedrinker]

 

That's quite a way to assume the worst. I don't think Luck cares about his stats.

 

I think, more likely, Luck checks out of run plays when he sees a certain look. I think we should be more stubborn against 7 man fronts and let the offensive line put some work in at times, but I think Luck's checking when he has favorable matchups because he's been told to do so. Chuck and Pep have mentioned identifying and attacking matchups since training camp, and Luck has done so since preseason. I think it's as simple as not trying to run when we don't have numbers. Not because Luck wants to pad his stats. That's a pretty strange assertion, IMO.

So you are more apt to believe that Luck cannot read a defense rather than he wants to pad his stats?  You could be right... Luck may not be the cerebral QB many fans assumed he would be.

[TheJACKCOLT]

Not sure what you're looking for. I only responded because your comment makes it seem like Richardson was getting stopped in the 4th. He only had two carries.

Knowing that your point was just that Boom was the one doing the work, there's nothing more to say.

 

Not sure what you're looking for. I only responded because your comment makes it seem like Richardson was getting stopped in the 4th. He only had two carries.

Knowing that your point was just that Boom was the one doing the work, there's nothing more to say.

 

No I didn't try to make it look like Trent was getting stopped,  not at all,  I merely made the point that,  the fact that Trent only had one carry for positive yards in the 4th qtr,  makes it impossible for him to have ran all over anybody in the 4th qtr, and that would be true whether he had 10 carries or 2 if only one went for positive yards, and that also would make it clear that it was Boom doing the majority of the work, which was my point.  Maybe as a Trent apologist,  you were being defensive,  and looking for something, that just wasn't there.  You tend to want to read into things, something that is not there.  All I am looking for, is a response that relates to the point that I am clearly making, not something I'm not saying. That's why I didn't understand the confusion, I made my point clear.  Not every post has a subliminal message in it. Sorry if I confused you, that was not my intent.

 

[Superman]

So you are more apt to believe that Luck cannot read a defense rather than he wants to pad his stats? You could be right... Luck may not be the cerebral QB many fans assumed he would be.

That's not what I said at all. Not even close. I don't know how you get that from what I said. I guess, taken to an extreme, I would agree, though. Luck is more likely to struggle with reading a defense than he is to be worried about padding his stats. I absolutely agree with that. The last thing he's thinking about on the field is his stat line.

However, Luck is still young. He isn't a polished signal caller before the snap. I don't think that's surprising.

[Superman]

No I didn't try to make it look like Trent was getting stopped, not at all, I merely made the point that, the fact that Trent only had one carry for positive yards in the 4th qtr, makes it impossible for him to have ran all over anybody in the 4th qtr, and that would be true whether he had 10 carries or 2 if only one went for positive yards, and that also would make it clear that it was Boom doing the majority of the work, which was my point. Maybe as a Trent apologist, you were being defensive, and looking for something, that just wasn't there. You tend to want to read into things, something that is not there. All I am looking for, is a response that relates to the point that I am clearly making, not something I'm not saying. That's why I didn't understand the confusion, I made my point clear. Not every post has a subliminal message in it. Sorry if I confused you, that was not my intent.

So you just want to argue with someone about Trent Richardson. We have a whole thread for that.

[TheJACKCOLT]

The guy loves to argue.  He will say anything to make his perspective seem true.  He thinks saying his point over and over makes him correct.  He is always trying to use your words in a wrong way, and runs with the idea he makes up in his head and applies it to other circumstances.  He thinks the way he talks is very intelligent and he understands everything, but in realitiy he is the one who gets confused by what people say (I'm referring to an old arguement of ours), so much that he gets upset and says "You make no sense".  Then he proceeds to comment on everyone of your posts, becoming verbally abusive and acting like a child (Who knows? Maybe he is a child!)!!

You my friend are the one that gets abusive and uses the terms ignorant, useless and clueless fans, don't try to put that crap off on me, your frustration with your inability to make a valid point is what leads you to call others ignorant, clueless and the other crap that you want to blame on someone else.  You can easily scroll back and look at previous post. What I don't get is why you are allowed to be so abusive, without any repercussion.  I can't help that you can't make a valid point to back up any of your opinions, and you can go back and look at previous post to see what that's worth.  Don't accuse  me of being verbally abusive, when you are the one using abusive terms. The only way I have abused you verbally, is with valid points, sorry if that offends you, but you are the one getting away with the abusive language and terms,  and like a child, now pointing the finger at someone else.  I don't  use your words in a wrong way, nor could I, you do that all by yourself, you need no help from me,  and yes the majority of the time I am very confused by everything you say, I'm sure not being able to make a valid point is very frustrating.  Scroll back and look at all the people on this forum,  that are completely confused at your attempts at logic.

[TheJACKCOLT]

So you just want to argue with someone about Trent Richardson. We have a whole thread for that.

No I don't want to argue at all, like I said, I made a clear point, didn't see the confusion. Sounded like you wanting to make it an argument about Richardson, I tried to take him out of it, since he didn't apply.

[Coffeedrinker]

That's not what I said at all. Not even close. I don't know how you get that from what I said. I guess, taken to an extreme, I would agree, though. Luck is more likely to struggle with reading a defense than he is to be worried about padding his stats. I absolutely agree with that. The last thing he's thinking about on the field is his stat line.

However, Luck is still young. He isn't a polished signal caller before the snap. I don't think that's surprising.

I'm confused.  You agree with my assessment of what you didn't say? ;)

 

I don't think Luck is padding his stats but I'm not ready to dismiss the idea either.  I don't even know if he changes the play often at the LOS.  I just look at other good teams around the league and I see them making a commitment to run the ball even when it's not working initially and sometimes even at the end of the game the numbers don't look great (look at Dallas last night, Murray averaged 2.88 ypc.  but they still fed him the rock 31 times.  I've seen the Pats, Broncos, Packers, etc all stick with the running game even when it's not great and I would like to see the Colts do the same thing.

[Superman]

I'm confused. You agree with my assessment of what you didn't say? ;)

If I had to choose between Luck not being as good at reading defenses as some think, and Luck padding his stats, yes, I'd assume he's not that good at reading defenses. It's the more logical conclusion.

Problem is that my original point had nothing to do with Luck not being able to read defenses. It was actually the opposite, that he's checking out of runs when the matchups and whatnot favor the pass. That's an indication that he can/is reading defenses.

I don't think Luck is padding his stats but I'm not ready to dismiss the idea either. I don't even know if he changes the play often at the LOS. I just look at other good teams around the league and I see them making a commitment to run the ball even when it's not working initially and sometimes even at the end of the game the numbers don't look great (look at Dallas last night, Murray averaged 2.88 ypc. but they still fed him the rock 31 times. I've seen the Pats, Broncos, Packers, etc all stick with the running game even when it's not great and I would like to see the Colts do the same thing.

First off, I'd consider the fact that they closed out yesterday with a strong running performance to be evidence that they are adjusting, or at the least, they thought it would work in that situation. Reminded me of how they finished off the Texans in 2012.

Secondly, those teams are better on the ground, and it's not just because they're more stubborn with the run. That's another issue, but the point is that it's easier to pound the rock when you've had past success doing it. For the Colts, that success has been sporadic, and the desire to try to pound the ball was a problem for about six weeks last season.

[Gavin]

I'm confused.  You agree with my assessment of what you didn't say? ;)

 

I don't think Luck is padding his stats but I'm not ready to dismiss the idea either.  I don't even know if he changes the play often at the LOS.  I just look at other good teams around the league and I see them making a commitment to run the ball even when it's not working initially and sometimes even at the end of the game the numbers don't look great (look at Dallas last night, Murray averaged 2.88 ypc.  but they still fed him the rock 31 times.  I've seen the Pats, Broncos, Packers, etc all stick with the running game even when it's not great and I would like to see the Colts do the same thing.

I don't know how much of this applies to what Pep does with Andrew in the NFL.....I'd suspect some of it does but if you scroll down the article and Pep explains the communication and how Andrew went about things in terms of playcalling. I see no reason to believe it would drastically change in the NFL in that regard http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Coach-Pep-Hamilton-wields-Stanford-playbook-2425159.php

[ColtStronger]

You my friend are the one that gets abusive and uses the terms ignorant, useless and clueless fans, don't try to put that crap off on me, your frustration with your inability to make a valid point is what leads you to call others ignorant, clueless and the other crap that you want to blame on someone else.  You can easily scroll back and look at previous post. What I don't get is why you are allowed to be so abusive, without any repercussion.  I can't help that you can't make a valid point to back up any of your opinions, and you can go back and look at previous post to see what that's worth.  Don't accuse  me of being verbally abusive, when you are the one using abusive terms. The only way I have abused you verbally, is with valid points, sorry if that offends you, but you are the one getting away with the abusive language and terms,  and like a child, now pointing the finger at someone else.  I don't  use your words in a wrong way, nor could I, you do that all by yourself, you need no help from me,  and yes the majority of the time I am very confused by everything you say, I'm sure not being able to make a valid point is very frustrating.  Scroll back and look at all the people on this forum,  that are completely confused at your attempts at logic.

OK, I'm on it right now buddy...  Now that I re-read all of our conversations, you're completely right.  Im the *.  How did I not see that the whole time?  I give up on life, you win!

[ColtStronger]

No I don't want to argue at all, like I said, I made a clear point, didn't see the confusion. Sounded like you wanting to make it an argument about Richardson, I tried to take him out of it, since he didn't apply.

Another person that doesn't understand your points?  Or is it that you don't understand him?  It's not the first time and certainly wont be the last!! 

[TheJACKCOLT]

Another person that doesn't understand your points?  Or is it that you don't understand him?  It's not the first time and certainly wont be the last!! 

Shoo fly, shoo

[Coffeedrinker]

If I had to choose between Luck not being as good at reading defenses as some think, and Luck padding his stats, yes, I'd assume he's not that good at reading defenses. It's the more logical conclusion.

Problem is that my original point had nothing to do with Luck not being able to read defenses. It was actually the opposite, that he's checking out of runs when the matchups and whatnot favor the pass. That's an indication that he can/is reading defenses.

 

 

Like I said, I don't know how much he's checking or changing the plays.  But if he's checking out of a run and then the pass play fails because all the receivers are covered or a blitz is not accounted for which doesn't happen every time but it happens a lot, then that would indicate he doesn't know how to read a defense.. .or that he doesn't know how to read what the defense is disguising.

 

First off, I'd consider the fact that they closed out yesterday with a strong running performance to be evidence that they are adjusting, or at the least, they thought it would work in that situation. Reminded me of how they finished off the Texans in 2012.

 

 

That si why you don't see me saying things like the Colts should get rid of Pep or Luck or Pagano... they are all young and gaining experience.  Unfortunately, we won't know if they are learning except from one year to the next.  I do think it was a mistake to go with a rookie HC and a rookie QB at the same time but that is another topic.

 

Secondly, those teams are better on the ground, and it's not just because they're more stubborn with the run. That's another issue, but the point is that it's easier to pound the rock when you've had past success doing it. For the Colts, that success has been sporadic, and the desire to try to pound the ball was a problem for about six weeks last season.

 

Yes, they are better on the ground for numerous reasons... one of the main reasons, however, is because they have made a commitment to run the ball.

[TKnight24]

My biggest complaint is feed Boom the ball more! 11 carries for 60 yards guys, he can play. 

 

Gotta bench Trent for that to happen. Seriously he should just be inactive and roll with Boom & Tipton 

[Superman]

Like I said, I don't know how much he's checking or changing the plays.  But if he's checking out of a run and then the pass play fails because all the receivers are covered or a blitz is not accounted for which doesn't happen every time but it happens a lot, then that would indicate he doesn't know how to read a defense.. .or that he doesn't know how to read what the defense is disguising.

 

That sort of suggests that every play a QB checks to has to be a success, otherwise he doesn't know how to read defenses.

 

People don't hold the Texans and Browns in very high regard, but both of those defenses have been capable of making plays all season long. The Browns have a really good secondary that doesn't allow a lot of completions or a lot of yards, and forces a lot of turnovers. Houston's defense leads the league in turnovers, and they don't give up a lot in the air, but are more susceptible to the big play. Either way, decent to pretty good pass defenses. So Luck checking out of a run into a pass play, and the play not being successful, isn't really an indication that he's not making the right decisions before the snap. There's a lot going on after the snap that's influencing the outcome of the play.

 

Also, I get the feeling that it's a pretty simple diagnosis that he's responsible for, mostly based on the numbers and matchups. Not necessarily trying to predetermine the precise coverage, nothing graduate level yet, I don't think. More like, that's a LB on a WR (or a TE, the way Fleener has been beating coverages lately), let's try to exploit it. Or, that's a 7 man box, let's try to attack them outside the numbers. 

 

There aren't nearly enough hot routes against blitz looks, and the offense is hampered by its inability to run an effective screen play (which I think is entirely a coaching issue; the edge blocking gets destroyed more often than not, with Luck not even having a clear lane to throw the ball), especially against a press look with little defensive depth. Fix those two things, and I think those checks to pass plays become devastatingly effective, forcing more nickel coverage onto the field with deep safeties and/or corner cushions. Then we'll really be using the pass to set up the run, instead of using the pass because it's all we're really good at.

 

 

That si why you don't see me saying things like the Colts should get rid of Pep or Luck or Pagano... they are all young and gaining experience.  Unfortunately, we won't know if they are learning except from one year to the next.  I do think it was a mistake to go with a rookie HC and a rookie QB at the same time but that is another topic.

 

Yes, they are better on the ground for numerous reasons... one of the main reasons, however, is because they have made a commitment to run the ball.

 

 

Could have hired someone with more experience, but I don't think it was a mistake. Unless we really struck gold with every draft pick, every acquisition, and had top notch coaching, I honestly don't think this team would have had more big picture success than it's had so far. Not without some serious fortune. There was a lot of magic in 2012, but I don't think that team was anywhere near ready to go deep into the playoffs. Last year, there were too many injuries, and even with some of Pagano's glaring mistakes, there was no beating the Broncos or the Seahawks in the postseason, IMO. So now, Pagano and Luck have both had a chance to grow, to learn, etc., and I think there's definite evidence of growth and improvement throughout the staff, and obviously with Luck. 

 

I don't think coaching football is rocket science. Pagano made some game management blunders last season that he's been better with this season. He's a little more aggressive in certain situations. They opened up the offense, maybe a little too much, but overall, the offense is better now than it was last season, and that's partly due to a drastic difference in approach. Everyone knows what wins football games. There's some innovation here and there, but for the most part, everybody does the same thing. It's about capturing the moment, developing your talent, putting guys in position to perform, and good management. I don't think he's on par with the really good/great coaches in the league just yet, but he has the intangibles that some guys will just never have (Trestman, Mike Smith), and the self-awareness and balance to utilize them effectively (Rex Ryan, Jay Gruden). I think he can improve in the other areas, and to an extent, he already has.

 

Also, about running the ball, all told, yeah, we should be more stubborn with it at times. You never know when you might be able to salt the game away with a run-heavy sequence or two.

[Gavin]

That sort of suggests that every play a QB checks to has to be a success, otherwise he doesn't know how to read defenses.

 

People don't hold the Texans and Browns in very high regard, but both of those defenses have been capable of making plays all season long. The Browns have a really good secondary that doesn't allow a lot of completions or a lot of yards, and forces a lot of turnovers. Houston's defense leads the league in turnovers, and they don't give up a lot in the air, but are more susceptible to the big play. Either way, decent to pretty good pass defenses. So Luck checking out of a run into a pass play, and the play not being successful, isn't really an indication that he's not making the right decisions before the snap. There's a lot going on after the snap that's influencing the outcome of the play.

 

Also, I get the feeling that it's a pretty simple diagnosis that he's responsible for, mostly based on the numbers and matchups. Not necessarily trying to predetermine the precise coverage, nothing graduate level yet, I don't think. More like, that's a LB on a WR (or a TE, the way Fleener has been beating coverages lately), let's try to exploit it. Or, that's a 7 man box, let's try to attack them outside the numbers. 

 

There aren't nearly enough hot routes against blitz looks, and the offense is hampered by its inability to run an effective screen play (which I think is entirely a coaching issue; the edge blocking gets destroyed more often than not, with Luck not even having a clear lane to throw the ball), especially against a press look with little defensive depth. Fix those two things, and I think those checks to pass plays become devastatingly effective, forcing more nickel coverage onto the field with deep safeties and/or corner cushions. Then we'll really be using the pass to set up the run, instead of using the pass because it's all we're really good at.

 

 

 

Could have hired someone with more experience, but I don't think it was a mistake. Unless we really struck gold with every draft pick, every acquisition, and had top notch coaching, I honestly don't think this team would have had more big picture success than it's had so far. Not without some serious fortune. There was a lot of magic in 2012, but I don't think that team was anywhere near ready to go deep into the playoffs. Last year, there were too many injuries, and even with some of Pagano's glaring mistakes, there was no beating the Broncos or the Seahawks in the postseason, IMO. So now, Pagano and Luck have both had a chance to grow, to learn, etc., and I think there's definite evidence of growth and improvement throughout the staff, and obviously with Luck. 

 

I don't think coaching football is rocket science. Pagano made some game management blunders last season that he's been better with this season. He's a little more aggressive in certain situations. They opened up the offense, maybe a little too much, but overall, the offense is better now than it was last season, and that's partly due to a drastic difference in approach. Everyone knows what wins football games. There's some innovation here and there, but for the most part, everybody does the same thing. It's about capturing the moment, developing your talent, putting guys in position to perform, and good management. I don't think he's on par with the really good/great coaches in the league just yet, but he has the intangibles that some guys will just never have (Trestman, Mike Smith), and the self-awareness and balance to utilize them effectively (Rex Ryan, Jay Gruden). I think he can improve in the other areas, and to an extent, he already has.

 

Also, about running the ball, all told, yeah, we should be more stubborn with it at times. You never know when you might be able to salt the game away with a run-heavy sequence or two.

we are gonna have to be able to run the ball against the more well rounded teams in the playoffs to win, NE, Pitt, Baltimore even Cincy all have the ability to run very well when they want to, We probably can get by Baltimore with a pass heavy strategy again but if we try that against NE or Denver......well that's just a 1 and done strategy. I would not be surprised at all if Pep and Luck use the same strategy in the NFL in regards to how plays are called as that article describes (straight from Peps mouth)  

 

"He calls the plays only in the sense that he selects which of a few options the coaches have given him on that snap. He reads the defensive formation and adjusts accordingly. He does not pick out which of the 300 plays he feels like running."

 

 

I also think while Andrew has gotten better in reading defenses in my opinion, He still struggles in taking what the defense is giving him.......Example would be the Ravens giving us multiple single high safety looks which just begs an offense to take advantage over the middle of the field, especially considering how aggressive they were with there Linebackers. Or recognizing the off Man coverage and throwing the slant

[Coffeedrinker]

That sort of suggests that every play a QB checks to has to be a success, otherwise he doesn't know how to read defenses.

 

No it doesn't and I spelled out the type of situations where it does apply.

[OLD FAN MAN]

If I had to choose between Luck not being as good at reading defenses as some think, and Luck padding his stats, yes, I'd assume he's not that good at reading defenses. It's the more logical conclusion.

Problem is that my original point had nothing to do with Luck not being able to read defenses. It was actually the opposite, that he's checking out of runs when the matchups and whatnot favor the pass. That's an indication that he can/is reading defenses.

First off, I'd consider the fact that they closed out yesterday with a strong running performance to be evidence that they are adjusting, or at the least, they thought it would work in that situation. Reminded me of how they finished off the Texans in 2012.

Secondly, those teams are better on the ground, and it's not just because they're more stubborn with the run. That's another issue, but the point is that it's easier to pound the rock when you've had past success doing it. For the Colts, that success has been sporadic, and the desire to try to pound the ball was a problem for about six weeks last season.

those teams also have great o-lines

[jskinnz]

Gotta bench Trent for that to happen. Seriously he should just be inactive and roll with Boom & Tipton 

 

So you are advocating having only 2 backs active on the game day roster?

[IndyFan93]

I agree about running the ball more, but I'm curious, what percentage of pass plays were play action this week? I'd like to see us run more play action as well, but that could be because of the poor pass protection lately.