Are the Colts' personnel better suited for a base 4-3 DEF?

[OLD FAN MAN 61]

they don't seem to be suited for a 3-4 or a 4-3 we need talent

[ColtRider 22]

Here's the deal, IMO. Building a 3-4 defense is the most assured way of "Stopping the Run" to "Build the Monster". The defensive holes are major ones. DT, ILB, S demand the draft needs. Surely, the offensive weapons are in place. (an OL added won't hurt for sure) Special teams are in place as well. (punt and kick returner may be only weakness)

But the overall picture as I see it and likely most lies with improving the DL & ILB run-stopping abilities. S is next. The offense is set for a Super Bowl run along with Special teams play. We're missing the adhesive on defense for the VL Trophy run(s).

Draft those defensive holes and the picture starts to become clearer. It's liken to gravitational lensing & dark matter. It's the glue that holds everything together. You don't see it. But you know it's there. Witnessing it creates believe ability.

[J@son 909]

Multiple things are wrong with your post.  First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway.  Which is it?

 

Beyond that, the super small, slim lined version of the Indianapolis Tampa 2 differed from what you saw in Tampa or in Chicago with Lovie, and after following it for a decade, I would say, yes, Polian, not Dungy, was the driving force who brought the sleek Indianapolis version to a reality.  There was the Tampa 2, then there was the Indianapolis version of it.

 

Finally, I would say the Indianapolis 2, with DTs the size of LBs and LBs the size of DBs, kept us from more Super Bowls than it brought us.  There's a reason that defense is now resting on the ash heap of history. 

 

yeah no, it was Dungy that told Polian what kind of players he could use...not Polian telling Dungy what kind of players he was going to use.  Dungy's defense had the same problems in Minnesota when he was DC.   Players on the DL were too small and thus got run over by the power running teams. The reason his defense actually worked in Tampa was that 1) the players weren't as undersized as they were in Minn and then in Indy and 2) they used a lot of high draft picks on defense which never happened in Indy.  Now that (high draft picks not being spent on defense) can fall on Polian, but the types of players he brought in were the types of players Dungy wanted.

[Gavin 5]

yeah no, it was Dungy that told Polian what kind of players he could use...not Polian telling Dungy what kind of players he was going to use.  Dungy's defense had the same problems in Minnesota when he was DC.   Players on the DL were too small and thus got run over by the power running teams. The reason his defense actually worked in Tampa was that 1) the players weren't as undersized as they were in Minn and then in Indy and 2) they used a lot of high draft picks on defense which never happened in Indy.  Now that (high draft picks not being spent on defense) can fall on Polian, but the types of players he brought in were the types of players Dungy wanted.

From the time Polian took over in '98 he had 27 1st or 2nd round picks....He spent 15 of those on defense...That's over half his high draft picks on defense, I also don't think it was a case of "what Dungy wanted Dungy got", Polian said they went BPA.....How they came to that I don't know but Polian said they went BPA

[Superman 9,187]

From the time Polian took over in '98 he had 27 1st or 2nd round picks....He spent 15 of those on defense...That's over half his high draft picks on defense, I also don't think it was a case of "what Dungy wanted Dungy got", Polian said they went BPA.....How they came to that I don't know but Polian said they went BPA

 

How many after Dungy got here? And how many were DBs? 

[J@son 909]

How many after Dungy got here? And how many were DBs? 

 

Or DTs?

[J@son 909]

From the time Polian took over in '98 he had 27 1st or 2nd round picks....He spent 15 of those on defense...That's over half his high draft picks on defense, I also don't think it was a case of "what Dungy wanted Dungy got", Polian said they went BPA.....How they came to that I don't know but Polian said they went BPA

 

Dungy was hired in 2002, so who Polian drafted from '98 to '02 has no bearing on this discussion.  As to the "dungy getting what dungy wanted", was merely referring to the types of players, not where they were selected.  I never for a moment thought that, or meant to suggest that, Dungy determined who was picked.  But he would have given Polian a set of player types that he wanted for his defense, and those would have been the types of players Polian targeted.

[BrentMc11 633]

Multiple things are wrong with your post.  First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway.  Which is it?

 

Beyond that, the super small, slim lined version of the Indianapolis Tampa 2 differed from what you saw in Tampa or in Chicago with Lovie, and after following it for a decade, I would say, yes, Polian, not Dungy, was the driving force who brought the sleek Indianapolis version to a reality.  There was the Tampa 2, then there was the Indianapolis version of it.

 

Finally, I would say the Indianapolis 2, with DTs the size of LBs and LBs the size of DBs, kept us from more Super Bowls than it brought us.  There's a reason that defense is now resting on the ash heap of history. 

Wrong!  Coffee is on it.

[chad72 7,127]

I think our newbies on the front 7 that gained experience last year will be better along the DL. Still, toughness is an attitude change that is much needed along the DL. Having Mathis will definitely help.

 

I do think we have better talent to play more 4-3 formations than 3-4 formations but having the flexibility with a hybrid is probably more important than just the 4-3 or 3-4, IMO.

[Jay Kirk 3,329]

Multiple things are wrong with your post.  First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway.  Which is it?

 

Beyond that, the super small, slim lined version of the Indianapolis Tampa 2 differed from what you saw in Tampa or in Chicago with Lovie, and after following it for a decade, I would say, yes, Polian, not Dungy, was the driving force who brought the sleek Indianapolis version to a reality.  There was the Tampa 2, then there was the Indianapolis version of it.

 

Finally, I would say the Indianapolis 2, with DTs the size of LBs and LBs the size of DBs, kept us from more Super Bowls than it brought us.  There's a reason that defense is now resting on the ash heap of history. 

 

 

Wrong!  Coffee is on it.

I Second that motion , Coffee is spot on .

[BrentMc11 633]

I think our newbies on the front 7 that gained experience last year will be better along the DL. Still, toughness is an attitude change that is much needed along the DL. Having Mathis will definitely help.

 

I do think we have better talent to play more 4-3 formations than 3-4 formations but having the flexibility with a hybrid is probably more important than just the 4-3 or 3-4, IMO.

Good post Chad!  Changing looks is always important.  It can really perplex an offense.  I am looking forward to seeing Mathis and Walden/Cole in some 'fun' blitz packages.

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

Multiple things are wrong with your post.  First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway.  Which is it?

 

Beyond that, the super small, slim lined version of the Indianapolis Tampa 2 differed from what you saw in Tampa or in Chicago with Lovie, and after following it for a decade, I would say, yes, Polian, not Dungy, was the driving force who brought the sleek Indianapolis version to a reality.  There was the Tampa 2, then there was the Indianapolis version of it.

 

Finally, I would say the Indianapolis 2, with DTs the size of LBs and LBs the size of DBs, kept us from more Super Bowls than it brought us.  There's a reason that defense is now resting on the ash heap of history. 

One that is why I put vision in quotes.

 

Two, if you look at the average weight of the dline in tampa under Dungy and the average weight of the dlineman in INdy under Dungy they are very similar.  What Lovie did has not bearing on the conversation because he had a different vision for his Zone 2 scheme.

 

Third, the Colts never had DTs the size of LBers and other than June didn't have any LBers the size of DBs.  If you're going to try and make a point at least be honest about it rather than having to make things up.

 

Lastly, teams still run their over version of the cover 2, so it's not quite on the ash heap yet.  B,) the Bears 5-2 d is on the ash heap, the steel curtain D is on the ash heap, the west coast offense is on the ash heap... that does not mean those were not good defenses (offense) at the time.

[Gavin 5]

How many after Dungy got here? And how many were DBs? 

8 after Dungy got here on January 22 2002, 5 DB's (Caldwell didn't take over till January 12 2009)

[Superman 9,187]

8 after Dungy got here on January 22 2002, 5 DB's (Caldwell didn't take over till January 12 2009)

 

I hope you see my point. 

[Gavin 5]

I hope you see my point. 

I was just going by what was said

[Superman 9,187]

I was just going by what was said

 

I think the point was that the Colts didn't devote a lot of draft resources toward trench players on defense. In Dungy's entire time here, the Colts drafted 2 front 7 players in the first 2 rounds -- Freeney and Wheeler, and neither of them were known for being good run defenders. The fact that Polian didn't devote a lot of resources to players that would improve the run defenses is pretty well established.

 

Jason_S said the Bucs used a lot of high picks on defensive players, which didn't happen in Indy, and he's correct. The high picks used on defensive players were mostly players in the secondary. And the Colts had a good pass defense -- didn't give up a lot of big plays, were able to force turnovers, etc. -- but always came up short up front against the run. 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

I think the point was that the Colts didn't devote a lot of draft resources toward trench players on defense. In Dungy's entire time here, the Colts drafted 2 front 7 players in the first 2 rounds -- Freeney and Wheeler, and neither of them were known for being good run defenders. The fact that Polian didn't devote a lot of resources to players that would improve the run defenses is pretty well established.

 

Jason_S said the Bucs used a lot of high picks on defensive players, which didn't happen in Indy, and he's correct. The high picks used on defensive players were mostly players in the secondary. And the Colts had a good pass defense -- didn't give up a lot of big plays, were able to force turnovers, etc. -- but always came up short up front against the run. 

The Colts did not spend a lot of high draft picks but they did things very unusual for a Polian team in Signed Simon (1st round pick), Montae Reagor (2nd round pick), traded for McFarland (1st round pick),  And Quinn Pitcock (3rd round pick) was ready to be a starter before he decided video games were more important.  So it's not like they did not try to address the position.  He just did not do it well, although Reagor and McFarland provided good snaps while they were with the Colts,

[Superman 9,187]

The Colts did not spend a lot of high draft picks but they did things very unusual for a Polian team in Signed Simon (1st round pick), Montae Reagor (2nd round pick), traded for McFarland (1st round pick), And Quinn Pitcock (3rd round pick) was ready to be a starter before he decided video games were more important. So it's not like they did not try to address the position. He just did not do it well, although Reagor and McFarland provided good snaps while they were with the Colts,

All true. But if the point was that the Bucs had better defensive personnel, especially up front, I don't see where the argument is.

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

All true. But if the point was that the Bucs had better defensive personnel, especially up front, I don't see where the argument is.

I agree, I did not follow the whole chain, just commenting on the part about Polian not addressing the line because he did not use high draft picks.