Drafting Phillip Dorsett helps our run defense.

[horseshoeblue22 112]

He's a WR. He's an offensive player. He will not be asked to cover anyone, or tackle anyone. But he will improve our run defense, and our defense as a whole. Hear me out on this one.

 

There's no way in the world that opposing teams will be able to cover Hilton, Johnson, Dorsett, Moncrief, Allen and Fleener with one-on-one man coverage across the board. Andrew Luck will have a career day out there, one of these guys will be wide open on every single passing play.

 

The teams that shut down our offense last year used a ton of man coverage techniques and blitzed constantly. The additions of Dorsett and Johnson this off-season will force another defender or two out of the box. Teams will be forced to pressure Luck with only four defenders. If they are only rushing four, our O-Line will have a much easier time defending those blitzes. Less guys in the tackle box means that our O-Line will have a much easier time opening holes for our running backs. This means that our running game will be much more effective on a per carry basis.

 

A more effective running game means that our offense can control time of possession. You put all your defensive backs in off coverage, Gore and Boom will be out there getting 5 yards a pop. A more effective running game, an offense that can control time of possession makes our defense better. More time off the field for our defense means that our defense will be more fresh towards the end of the game. A fresh defense is a more effective one, simple as that.

 

Teams will have to respect Dorsett's speed out of the slot. That will have a trickle down effect on our line, our backs and yes, even our defense. Don't look at this move in a vacuum. A move like this can have an indirect effect on other aspects of the team.

 

I wanted a defender here too...but we can still get some solid guys at 61, 93 and later in the draft. We were never going to find a 4.25 receiver as complete as Dorsett in the second round. He's TY Hilton with better measurables coming out of college. What's not to like about that? The draft is more then just one round, stop overreacting.

[Everyone 2,338]

He's a WR. He's an offensive player. He will not be asked to cover anyone, or tackle anyone. But he will improve our run defense, and our defense as a whole. Hear me out on this one.

 

There's no way in the world that opposing teams will be able to cover Hilton, Johnson, Dorsett, Moncrief, Allen and Fleener with one-on-one man coverage across the board. Andrew Luck will have a career day out there, one of these guys will be wide open on every single passing play.

 

The teams that shut down our offense last year used a ton of man coverage techniques and blitzed constantly. The additions of Dorsett and Johnson this off-season will force another defender or two out of the box. Teams will be forced to pressure Luck with only four defenders. If they are only rushing four, our O-Line will have a much easier time defending those blitzes. Less guys in the tackle box means that our O-Line will have a much easier time opening holes for our running backs. This means that our running game will be much more effective on a per carry basis.

 

A more effective running game means that our offense can control time of possession. You put all your defensive backs in off coverage, Gore and Boom will be out there getting 5 yards a pop. A more effective running game, an offense that can control time of possession makes our defense better. More time off the field for our defense means that our defense will be more fresh towards the end of the game. A fresh defense is a more effective one, simple as that.

 

Teams will have to respect Dorsett's speed out of the slot. That will have a trickle down effect on our line, our backs and yes, even our defense. Don't look at this move in a vacuum. A move like this can have an indirect effect on other aspects of the team.

 

I wanted a defender here too...but we can still get some solid guys at 61, 93 and later in the draft. We were never going to find a 4.25 receiver as complete as Dorsett in the second round. He's TY Hilton with better measurables coming out of college. What's not to like about that? The draft is more then just one round, stop overreacting.

I agree but we also thought nobody could cover all the weapons last season.

[BProland85 2,557]

Will we find starters in rounds 2-7 on defense? Cause that's what Indy needs. I have no faith in our current DL or safety tandem.

[BpG 260]

I am not reading that wall of text. A 5'10 WR making the defense better is just a terrible premise. 

[horseshoeblue22 112]

I am not reading that wall of text. A 5'10 WR making the defense better is just a terrible premise. 

 

Wall of text? It's six small paragraphs for heaven's sake. If you don't feel like reading, why are you on a message board? Why even bother replying?

 

TLDR version: Don't evaluate moves in a vacuum. Improving one aspect of one team can and will have an indirect effect on other aspects of the team. Dorsett will be used as a "blitz beater", taking much of the heat off of our backs and linemen. Better running game = better defense.

[That Guy 838]

Another question is "Will Luck have enough time to find the open receiver?"

[Smonroe 9,544]

I agree but we also thought nobody could cover all the weapons last season.

 

Or the year before, with DHB.  But in the playoffs, we really had 1 decent WR.  For some reason, Nicks really never fit the O and Reggie was clearly no impact.  Moncrief still wasn't part of the O.

 

So, IF Andre is 90% of the player he used to be, and IF Moncrief has improved, and IF Carter lives up to expectations, we should be pretty decent.

 

As far as the O line giving Luck time, I think our biggest concern is RT.  I think the additions (H&H) will shore up the G position, and there may be hope for Thomas.  Plus, they played pretty well the last few games.

 

As far as the OP - yes, making their O play catch up will help the D.  Sounds like a familiar strategy, doesn't it?

[ruksak 5,977]

Ahhhh....the old by-proxy angle, huh? 

 

I'm sorry, I learned this from playing Madden football because I'm similar to an NFL genius. The best way to help the defense is to actually bring in good defenders. 

[Flash7 2,567]

Dorsett was one of my favorite players in the draft. He's extremely fast, quick, and can get separation. I have no doubt that he will thrill us Colts fans for years to come.

 

The problem is that we are once again just an offensive team. We already know this formula will get us into the playoffs. We have been to the playoffs with lesser talent at receiver and have lost to tough defensive teams. Year-in and year-out, the teams that win the Super Bowl are either balanced teams or defensive teams. It hardly ever happens that an offensive juggernaut wins. Take the undefeated NE team for example and then compare them to last year's NE team. Last year's team had a good offense and a great defense, which made all of the difference.

[mattceinicram 236]

Another question is "Will Luck have enough time to find the open receiver?"

I actually think our line will be a lot better next year. We added Heremans and Heenan, and the guys that were playing well at the end of the year will have more time to build chemistry. Not to mention, Thomas and Cherilus might be able to recover from injury and help a lot.

[needanoline63 322]

With Landon Collins on the board still, I hate this pick.? Didn't grigson say he liked Landon Collins? Very disappointed

[horseshoeblue22 112]

Another question is "Will Luck have enough time to find the open receiver?"

 

I think they are looking at Dorsett as a "blitz beater" coming out of the slot. Teams can't just put their 3rd or 4th corner on him, or some lousy safety without the threat of a 60 yard TD over the top. They can't double him or use bracket coverage and still bring enough blitzers to get after Andrew.

 

Our offense was nearly unstoppable for the first half of the season last year. Our offense really struggled against the blitz at times last year because Reggie and Moncrief could not consistently beat the blitz in these one-on-one man coverage situations. Teams knew that Trent wasn't getting past the line of scrimmage if they blitzed the middle of our O-Line. The guy just didn't have acceleration, burst, vision or any of the traits RBs need to break through the line of scrimmage against the blitz.

 

You beat the Colts offense by blitzing them, blitzing some more, and then blitzing again. With our additions on offense, teams will be scared to bring that many blitzers.

[horseshoeblue22 112]

It hardly ever happens that an offensive juggernaut wins.

 

The Colts were an offensive juggernaut when they won the Superbowl in 2007.

Same with the Saints when they were champs in 2010.

Packers in 2011 were an offensive-centric team, won the Superbowl.

Patriots in 2015 ranked 4th in points scored in the 2014 regular season, not a lousy offense by any means.

 

Pats in 2008 and Denver in 2014 featured record-breaking offenses...and they made it to the Superbowl as well.

 

4 out of the last 9 Superbowl winning teams can accurately be described as "offensive juggernauts". At least 2 of the runner-ups over those same nine years can be described as offensive juggernauts.

[Kylo Ren 15]

Why not draft receiver in the next two rounds as well, I mean Colts get stronger right, don't even bring linemen on the field, just line up 9 different receivers with Luc and Gore in the backfield

[Steamboat_Shaun 5,419]

With Landon Collins on the board still, I hate this pick.? Didn't grigson say he liked Landon Collins? Very disappointed

 

Liking him and justifying a 1st round pick for him aren't necessarily the same. And for all we know, Grigs saying he liked him could've just been a smokescreen. It's possible that Grigson doesn't like Collins at all. We weren't the only team that passed on Collins, he has major flaws in his game that get exposed when he has to cover elite receivers one-on-one. I wouldn't be too surprised if he's still on the board when we make our pick today.

[Flash7 2,567]

The Colts were an offensive juggernaut when they won the Superbowl in 2007.

Same with the Saints when they were champs in 2010.

Packers in 2011 were an offensive-centric team, won the Superbowl.

Patriots in 2015 ranked 4th in points scored in the 2014 regular season, not a lousy offense by any means.

 

Pats in 2008 and Denver in 2014 featured record-breaking offenses...and they made it to the Superbowl as well.

 

4 out of the last 9 Superbowl winning teams can accurately be described as "offensive juggernauts". At least 2 of the runner-ups over those same nine years can be described as offensive juggernauts.

Colts have been an offensive Juggernaut since Manning arrived, but only won the Super Bowl the year they had a solid defense throughout the playoffs. Same goes for the Saints with Brees and the Packers with rogers -- they had good offenses and won when they finally got a good defense.

 

The point is you can have a good offense, but without a good defense you will not win the Super Bowl. That's pretty hard to argue against.

[horseshoeblue22 112]

And how many teams have had a top notch defense and haven't won the Superbowl? SF has had a top notch defense for years, and it took incredible offensive play in the playoffs for them to finally breakthrough and even make it to the big game. Baltimore was the same way, and it took Joe Flacco playing like Joe Montana to finally get them a ring.

 

It can go either way. Offense doesn't win championships, but neither does defense on its own. 

 

"The point is you can have a good defense, but without a good offense you will not win the Super Bowl. That's pretty hard to argue against."

 

Did I get that right?

 

Winning the Superbowl isn't easy, even if you have the most talented roster in the game. Mathematically speaking, each team has about a 3% chance to winning the Superbowl in any given year. Defense isn't any more important then offense. Balance, a little luck and "getting hot" at the right time is the most important for any Superbowl winning team. Offensive teams can win Superbowls, they have won Superbowls, and they will continue to win Superbowls in the future.

 

The old adage of "Defense wins championships." kind of went out the window when they changed the rules regarding defensive holding and pass interference. Since the rules have changed, you will see more and more offensive teams winning the big game.

[The Peytonator 2,594]

I think you're right OP. Clearly the plan is for him to gain 100 lbs and a few inches in height, all the while retaining his spectacular straight line speed. The guy moves like a cat, just like Montori Hughes, I could definitely see him holding down the DE position for years to come.

[That Guy 838]

Ahhhh....the old by-proxy angle, huh? 

 

I'm sorry, I learned this from playing Madden football because I'm similar to an NFL genius. The best way to help the defense is to actually bring in good defenders. 

 

Truly spoken like John Madden himself.

[Hoosiernsavga 343]

I don't buy it. Just look at both Super Bowl teams last year. All Seattles WR's are UDFA. You don't see the Pats loading up on WR's because they have a fanchise QB who have brought out the best in what they have and spend money elsewhere to win championships. I'm fine with having weapons on offense but if this defense doesn't improve then it's going to be very frustrating watching teams dominate the line of scrimmage and eating up the clock. It's going to be hard having all these talented recievers on the field if our D can't stop anyone. And right now they are not good at all!

[theblueplague 55]

This post is really grasping at straws here.

 

Using horseshoeblue's logic here: a top punter pins opposing offenses deep, which helps the defense.  So could you say that drafting a punter helps the run defense?  I guess so.  IMHO, drafting defensive players helps the defense.

[needanoline63 322]

Liking him and justifying a 1st round pick for him aren't necessarily the same. And for all we know, Grigs saying he liked him could've just been a smokescreen. It's possible that Grigson doesn't like Collins at all. We weren't the only team that passed on Collins, he has major flaws in his game that get exposed when he has to cover elite receivers one-on-one. I wouldn't be too surprised if he's still on the board when we make our pick today.

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/4/24/8490207/colts-general-manager-ryan-grigson-on-landon-collins-he-can-do-it-all

[Steamboat_Shaun 5,419]

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/4/24/8490207/colts-general-manager-ryan-grigson-on-landon-collins-he-can-do-it-all

 

Excerpt from the article:

 

"What should we make of all of this?  Probably not much.  After all, it would have to be a pretty huge slip-up for Grigson to show his hand a week before the draft, so I don't think we should take this as Grigson saying that Collins is their top target or anything like that - because even if Collins is, Grigson wouldn't say it."

[Flash7 2,567]

And how many teams have had a top notch defense and haven't won the Superbowl? SF has had a top notch defense for years, and it took incredible offensive play in the playoffs for them to finally breakthrough and even make it to the big game. Baltimore was the same way, and it took Joe Flacco playing like Joe Montana to finally get them a ring.

 

It can go either way. Offense doesn't win championships, but neither does defense on its own. 

 

"The point is you can have a good defense, but without a good offense you will not win the Super Bowl. That's pretty hard to argue against."

 

Did I get that right?

 

Winning the Superbowl isn't easy, even if you have the most talented roster in the game. Mathematically speaking, each team has about a 3% chance to winning the Superbowl in any given year. Defense isn't any more important then offense. Balance, a little luck and "getting hot" at the right time is the most important for any Superbowl winning team. Offensive teams can win Superbowls, they have won Superbowls, and they will continue to win Superbowls in the future.

 

The old adage of "Defense wins championships." kind of went out the window when they changed the rules regarding defensive holding and pass interference. Since the rules have changed, you will see more and more offensive teams winning the big game.

Seattle had the #18 ranked offense and won the Super Bowl in 2013 with the #1 ranked defense. They won without a good offense.

[jseg18 121]

I'm think positive, although I'm going crazy because I thought we'd beef up the defense. I'm say grigs thinks we're set on the offensive line. Will he trade up in the second to grab a fat body. I wouldn't mind Denzel P , or Paul Dawson in the second.

[ED29_1659yards 45]

Like Grigson, i didn't believe that any of the top edge rushers that were coveted by every team, would make it to #29, except one, base on a prayer...lol. I honestly thought that we would have a chance to grab Alvin "Bud" Dupree, or Randy Gregory(which Grigson decided against). It's difficult for me to appreciate how awesome of a player, Phillip Dorsett is, as i reflect on the Patriots dismantling & abusing our Dline with "Fat-backs & Hog-maw"_style running backs(excuse the southern food references). Grigson selecting Dorsett means that everyone he was high on, and thought he could get, was gone, so it made since to acquire more firepower for the offense, while searching for run stoppers in the later rounds. Somehow, we gotta get T.C. in a Colts uni.....make Vick Ballard give up that #26 he just so happened to put on.....

[horseshoeblue22 112]

Seattle had the #18 ranked offense and won the Super Bowl in 2013 with the #1 ranked defense. They won without a good offense.

Seattles offense that year put up enough points in their playoff games to get to the Superbowl. They got hot at the right moment. Same with Flacco the year BAL won recently.

IND, NO, GB...they won with offensive firepower and defenses that got hot at the right moment. There are examples that go both ways.

Our Colts ranked 11th in defense last year, and made several FA moves to improve on that. Pagano has said on record that he would rather have experience on DEF and rookies on offense...and Grigson has built the team that way. Our defensive struggles are really overstated.

--

Dont think an offensive player can have a dramatic effect on a defense? Dallas fans didn't think so either. So many people called Zack Martin a wasted pick because they needed defensive help. 2013 Cowboys defense was the one of the worst if not the worst in NFL history in terms of yards allowed. They draft Martin, commit to running the ball and controlling TOP. 2014, they rank 15th in defense, despite losing Ware and several other defensive starters.

How in the world would a rookie OL improve the defense? Theres your example.

[21isSuperman 13,660]

Ahhhh....the old by-proxy angle, huh? 

 

I'm sorry, I learned this from playing Madden football because I'm similar to an NFL genius. The best way to help the defense is to actually bring in good defenders. 

 

Blasphemy!

[Flash7 2,567]

He's a WR. He's an offensive player. He will not be asked to cover anyone, or tackle anyone. But he will improve our run defense, and our defense as a whole. Hear me out on this one.

 

There's no way in the world that opposing teams will be able to cover Hilton, Johnson, Dorsett, Moncrief, Allen and Fleener with one-on-one man coverage across the board. Andrew Luck will have a career day out there, one of these guys will be wide open on every single passing play.

 

The teams that shut down our offense last year used a ton of man coverage techniques and blitzed constantly. The additions of Dorsett and Johnson this off-season will force another defender or two out of the box. Teams will be forced to pressure Luck with only four defenders. If they are only rushing four, our O-Line will have a much easier time defending those blitzes. Less guys in the tackle box means that our O-Line will have a much easier time opening holes for our running backs. This means that our running game will be much more effective on a per carry basis.

 

A more effective running game means that our offense can control time of possession. You put all your defensive backs in off coverage, Gore and Boom will be out there getting 5 yards a pop. A more effective running game, an offense that can control time of possession makes our defense better. More time off the field for our defense means that our defense will be more fresh towards the end of the game. A fresh defense is a more effective one, simple as that.

 

Teams will have to respect Dorsett's speed out of the slot. That will have a trickle down effect on our line, our backs and yes, even our defense. Don't look at this move in a vacuum. A move like this can have an indirect effect on other aspects of the team.

 

I wanted a defender here too...but we can still get some solid guys at 61, 93 and later in the draft. We were never going to find a 4.25 receiver as complete as Dorsett in the second round. He's TY Hilton with better measurables coming out of college. What's not to like about that? The draft is more then just one round, stop overreacting.

I agree with part of the premise of your post. I think a lot of the gripes that Colts fans has to do with how we've played against the Patriots and how we've lost to them the same way 4 straight times, allowing at least 40+ points in each game, and getting steamrolled in the process.

 

2012:  Colts 24 - Patriots 49  Luck: 27 of 50 for 334 Yards

2013:  Colts 22 - Patriots 43  Luck: 20 of 41 for 331 Yards

2014:  Colts 20 - Patriots 42  Luck: 23 of 39 for 303 Yards

2014:  Colts 7   - Patriots 45  Luck: 12 of 33 for 126 Yards

 

As you can see, The Patriots have averaged over 40 points per game against the Colts. Luck has also thrown for over 300 yards in 3 of 4 outings against NE. Our offense really struggled in the AFCCG. It has been primarily the defense that hasn't been able to contain NE's offense. 

 

We are fine on offense and really struggle on defense. This has been the case for over a decade now. I think, as fans, we were hoping to finally have a different approach regardless of the BPA draft philosophy. 

[horseshoeblue22 112]

Good thing we dont play the Pats every week. Get them outta yer head, man. Do you really think one defensive lineman is the difference between us dominating the Pats and us getting run over again?

Even if we find a way to stop NE's run game, they will find other ways to beat us. They put up 28 points in the Superbowl against the no. 1 defense in the league...and it wasnt by running for 250.

[needanoline63 322]

Excerpt from the article:

"What should we make of all of this? Probably not much. After all, it would have to be a pretty huge slip-up for Grigson to show his hand a week before the draft, so I don't think we should take this as Grigson saying that Collins is their top target or anything like that - because even if Collins is, Grigson wouldn't say it."

Umm ok. I just remember hearing Landon Collins can "do it all"

[John Waylon 3,412]

Ahhhh....the old by-proxy angle, huh?

I'm sorry, I learned this from playing Madden football because I'm similar to an NFL genius. The best way to help the defense is to actually bring in good defenders.

Nonsense. We need to draft ALL the wide receivers. Our run defense would be the greater ever, so would our pass defense and special teams.

[Jim H. 241]

Shorter version is the old adage -  "The best defense is a good offense."  

[masterlock 306]

I agree but we also thought nobody could cover all the weapons last season.

A championship-caliber defense can shut down a high-power offense. That's why your own team needs to have a championship-caliber defense too.

[The_Ricktator 3,720]

Wall of text? It's six small paragraphs for heaven's sake. If you don't feel like reading, why are you on a message board? Why even bother replying?

 

TLDR version: Don't evaluate moves in a vacuum. Improving one aspect of one team can and will have an indirect effect on other aspects of the team. Dorsett will be used as a "blitz beater", taking much of the heat off of our backs and linemen. Better running game = better defense.

Plus, the kid can come in day 1. And return punts and kicks. He can fly.

[3nk1du 18]

I agree with part of the premise of your post. I think a lot of the gripes that Colts fans has to do with how we've played against the Patriots and how we've lost to them the same way 4 straight times, allowing at least 40+ points in each game, and getting steamrolled in the process.

 

2012:  Colts 24 - Patriots 49  Luck: 27 of 50 for 334 Yards

2013:  Colts 22 - Patriots 43  Luck: 20 of 41 for 331 Yards

2014:  Colts 20 - Patriots 42  Luck: 23 of 39 for 303 Yards

2014:  Colts 7   - Patriots 45  Luck: 12 of 33 for 126 Yards

 

As you can see, The Patriots have averaged over 40 points per game against the Colts. Luck has also thrown for over 300 yards in 3 of 4 outings against NE. Our offense really struggled in the AFCCG. It has been primarily the defense that hasn't been able to contain NE's offense. 

 

We are fine on offense and really struggle on defense. This has been the case for over a decade now. I think, as fans, we were hoping to finally have a different approach regardless of the BPA draft philosophy. 

All those games were with truly inferior WR core,

12:Avery,Wayne,Hilton,Brazil

13:Hilton,DHB,Brazil,Whalen   

14(1):(1/2)Wayne,Hilton, Nicks,Moncrief + no running game 

14(1):(1/2)Wayne,Hilton, Nicks,Moncrief  + no running game (they send all the LB to cover so Andrew couldn't pass).

 

This year is gonna be : Hilton,AJ,Moncrief, Dorsett, anyone  + Gore (half Gore is better than TR last 2 seasons).

So they lose Davis and Browner they won't keep with those 4 + TEs + a better running game.

They covered Hilton with CB+ depth S now if they do that they are gonna be burned by Dorsett or Moncrief ,

but if they decide to play light packages we could just give the ball to Allen/Fleener/AJ for 8-15 yrds all the game but remember we got a decent (not a superstar) with Gore and he could also take 5 yds every run.

 

So yeah all those NE games had been blowouts but every game begins 0 / 0 .

 

And NE has won because they run , and run and run, now if they go down by 14 they won't run as much as they had , Brady has had bad games throwing vs this secondary.

 

[bap1331 677]

Another question is "Will Luck have enough time to find the open receiver?"

Thats not much of a question. We have a real runningback now. Frank gore tires defenses more than any other runningback, if anything, we are opening up our pass. We pass so much that its obvious.

More running, more clock, more opening up for our receivers, less tiring of our defense. We did well with boom and he was a 3rd stringer. Trich was obviously killing our teams vibe...

[OLD FAN MAN 643]

And how many teams have had a top notch defense and haven't won the Superbowl? SF has had a top notch defense for years, and it took incredible offensive play in the playoffs for them to finally breakthrough and even make it to the big game. Baltimore was the same way, and it took Joe Flacco playing like Joe Montana to finally get them a ring.

 

It can go either way. Offense doesn't win championships, but neither does defense on its own. 

 

"The point is you can have a good defense, but without a good offense you will not win the Super Bowl. That's pretty hard to argue against."

 

Did I get that right?

 

Winning the Superbowl isn't easy, even if you have the most talented roster in the game. Mathematically speaking, each team has about a 3% chance to winning the Superbowl in any given year. Defense isn't any more important then offense. Balance, a little luck and "getting hot" at the right time is the most important for any Superbowl winning team. Offensive teams can win Superbowls, they have won Superbowls, and they will continue to win Superbowls in the future.

 

The old adage of "Defense wins championships." kind of went out the window when they changed the rules regarding defensive holding and pass interference. Since the rules have changed, you will see more and more offensive teams winning the big game.

good point, it bears some thought