Keep D'Qwell Jackson, or no?

[OffensivelyPC]

Get rid of him.  I'd rather see Moore take more snaps.

[Robin Daugherty]

Why did indy let Luck scramble against Denver?? Did they not see what happened to Rodgers?? Now he will likely be out for the year. Question. Was it worth it?? Brady take note!!

[Coffeedrinker]

Keep him until you have someone better on the roster. Moore may be that person but so far because of learning the D or injuries he has not appeared to be better.

[ProblChld32]

D-Jacks has been playing freaking lights out. now that his is more acclimated with the defense he is playing alot faster. his only knock is his coverage skills, other than that he is a tackling machine. With that being said i think that we should keep him and let freeman walk. We have Moore and Irving who were brought in, i think once they get acclimated with the defense and the playbook we would be all set on the interior.

[indyagent17]

Having a great year against the run but a huge liability in space, He can be replaced with a lower cap hit

[ColtRider]

DJ is a solid ILB, but that's it. Would much rather have an ILB that can be a formidable run stopper & pass rusher. Take a look at some of the great LBs that have played the game. Most of them have Super Bowl rings. Defense wins Championships. I know that's a cliche that is thrown around like rock salt on ice, but it's the truth. To me, anyways, the ILB is the QB of the defense. Just as the QB of the offense is so critical to a franchise, this has always applied to the defense in my line of thinking.

You have a franchise QB on offense. A franchise ILB on defense. Build your teams around these two positions of strength, and see what happens.

[ztboiler]

I'm saying let him go.

 

He's playing really well right now against the run, but he can't cover anyone. He'll be 33 early next season, and is more likely to experience decline than he is to keep playing at the same level, which is already less than adequate overall. Even in a limited role, he can still be exploited.

 

Our biggest defensive weakness is rushing the passer, and the second biggest weakness is covering the middle of the field. Those are not complementary weaknesses if we want to be a top ten defense. As a matter of fact, they work in concert to weaken the effectiveness of the defense overall.

 

It's asking for a lot, but our ILBs need to be good against the run and against the pass. As difficult as that is to find, it's probably harder and more expensive to find disruptive pass rushers. We have to be able to cover the middle of the field with 6 or 7 men, instead of the customary 8 that we commit to the box. As long as we have one-dimensional ILBs, that will continue to be a problem.

This is surprisingly clear cut to me.  Surprising, because he is playing at a solid level as you and others have recognized, and my initial reaction was to keep him until we have someone better.

 

However, it's clear cut, from my perspective, that we need to move ahead without him because he plays a position where this team will have to become much more athletic to truly contend.  We have to find someone that can run and hit in space, including against the run, and obviously someone that isn't at such a match-up disadvantage on passing downs.  Good offenses with elusive backs will isolate him laterally, and it won't get better with age.  On principle, we aren't good enough and the position must be upgraded.  

 

Second, we need to start moving on from "good players" a year early rather than a year late - especially at high wear and tear positions.  Redding was a good player last year still, though fading toward the end, and had 3 productive years here as a "good player".  He is the perfect example of moving on from a good player a year early rather than a year late, and I think it's the same thing we are compelled to do with DQ given the option that is before the team.

 

Jackson has been a good signing, and the defense has gotten better with his presence, but we can't get to the next level without a better player at his position.  Time to get on with it.

[Superman]

Get rid of him.  I'd rather see Moore take more snaps.

 

I don't know why we haven't seen more Moore...

[Superman]

Why did indy let Luck scramble against Denver?? Did they not see what happened to Rodgers?? Now he will likely be out for the year. Question. Was it worth it?? Brady take note!!

 

This is entirely off topic. ???

[Dustin]

Teams that have good defenses don't start players like Jackson.

[Superman]

i just love posts that suggest unloading our leading tackler.  

 

I wonder when people will realize that tackle stats don't mean anything.

[OffensivelyPC]

I don't know why we haven't seen more Moore...

Yeah, me either.  I expected him not to see much time the first week or two with us, but I thought by now he would have be seeing more snaps and not because of someone else being injured (which by the way, I am still curious why McNary got the bulk of snaps that went to Freeman while injured).  Perhaps he's not picking up our playbook well (doubtful as there's not much complicated with it from an ILB standpoint), medical related, or Grigs is still meddling with coaching decisions which I'd find hard to believe after Pep's dismissal.  But I really have no good guesses at this point.

[OffensivelyPC]

This is surprisingly clear cut to me.  Surprising, because he is playing at a solid level as you and others have recognized, and my initial reaction was to keep him until we have someone better.

 

However, it's clear cut, from my perspective, that we need to move ahead without him because he plays a position where this team will have to become much more athletic to truly contend.  We have to find someone that can run and hit in space, including against the run, and obviously someone that isn't at such a match-up disadvantage on passing downs.  Good offenses with elusive backs will isolate him laterally, and it won't get better with age.  On principle, we aren't good enough and the position must be upgraded.  

 

Second, we need to start moving on from "good players" a year early rather than a year late - especially at high wear and tear positions.  Redding was a good player last year still, though fading toward the end, and had 3 productive years here as a "good player".  He is the perfect example of moving on from a good player a year early rather than a year late, and I think it's the same thing we are compelled to do with DQ given the option that is before the team.

 

Jackson has been a good signing, and the defense has gotten better with his presence, but we can't get to the next level without a better player at his position.  Time to get on with it.

To the bolded, that's the only reason that I can surmise that we haven't seen more of Sio Moore in that, I think they're squeezing the last bit out of Jackson and saving Moore for future use (I understood Moore had some hip injury concerns before coming to Indianapolis, but don't know the extent of them).  I'm not sure that's a sound decision, because if Moore is better and healthy, he should play.  But honestly, it's the only thing I can come up with that at least makes a little bit of sense.

[Superman]

This. . . LB's that can both cover and stop the run well don't grow on trees.  It's not like you can just reach into free agency and find a half dozen of them.  

 

Any decision to let someone go is predicated on how easy it is to replace them with what you want.  And if the cause for getting rid of D'Qwell is he's not very good against the pass, then you have to ask yourself how easy it would be to find and aquire a LB who's just as good against the run as D'Qwell is but better against the pass.  

 

And if you think that it would be easy to find that LB who's just as good against the run but better against the pass you are living in a fantasy land.  At that point you might as well cut Luck because he's not Aaron Rodgers.  

 

To the bolded, I'm not pretending that it's easy to find the kind of player we'd like to replace him with. I think we already have replacement level players on the roster in Moore and Irving. Getting a true STUD ILB isn't easy, but it's necessary. We're weak up the middle with Jackson. It stresses other parts of our defense having to commit coverage help to the middle of the field (it's part of the reason we have to give up big cushions on the outside, leaving us susceptible to screens and smoke routes). 

 

I'm also anticipating a drop off in his performance next year. 

 

Being honest, this wouldn't be a consideration if not for his price tag, which isn't exorbitant, but I'd rather pay $9m/year for a better all around player than $5.5m/year for a 33 year old one-dimensional player at a critical position.

 

The point really is that Jackson isn't the guy that we need in the middle if we want a top notch defense. Until we replace him or bench him, we're going to be stuck in limbo.

[Superman]

Yeah, me either.  I expected him not to see much time the first week or two with us, but I thought by now he would have be seeing more snaps and not because of someone else being injured (which by the way, I am still curious why McNary got the bulk of snaps that went to Freeman while injured).  Perhaps he's not picking up our playbook well (doubtful as there's not much complicated with it from an ILB standpoint), medical related, or Grigs is still meddling with coaching decisions which I'd find hard to believe after Pep's dismissal.  But I really have no good guesses at this point.

 

Jackson calls the defense. Moore probably can't do that. But like you said, it would seem like he'd be able to replace Freeman, yet they threw McNary in there to get worked. Maybe Moore wasn't 100% back then. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Jackson calls the defense. Moore probably can't do that. But like you said, it would seem like he'd be able to replace Freeman, yet they threw McNary in there to get worked. Maybe Moore wasn't 100% back then. 

That's (the bolded) an element I hadn't considered, as obvious as it should have been to me.  

[ztboiler]

To the bolded, that's the only reason that I can surmise that we haven't seen more of Sio Moore in that, I think they're squeezing the last bit out of Jackson and saving Moore for future use (I understood Moore had some hip injury concerns before coming to Indianapolis, but don't know the extent of them).  I'm not sure that's a sound decision, because if Moore is better and healthy, he should play.  But honestly, it's the only thing I can come up with that at least makes a little bit of sense.

I think that is more about the leanings of this coaching staff toward playing veteran players that are "good enough" than it is about squeezing more out of Jackson while they save Moore.

 

This type of example may also be contributory to real and professional disagreements between Grigson and Pagano.  Grigson probably wants to keep churning the roster, creating competition and figuring out who can play with some upside.  Pagano talks competition, but his coaching behavior suggests a pretty safe environment for veterans to get comfortable in.

[Devildog]

DQ and Freeman should be replaced next year.

[dgambill]

I'm saying let him go.

 

He's playing really well right now against the run, but he can't cover anyone. He'll be 33 early next season, and is more likely to experience decline than he is to keep playing at the same level, which is already less than adequate overall. Even in a limited role, he can still be exploited.

 

Our biggest defensive weakness is rushing the passer, and the second biggest weakness is covering the middle of the field. Those are not complementary weaknesses if we want to be a top ten defense. As a matter of fact, they work in concert to weaken the effectiveness of the defense overall.

 

It's asking for a lot, but our ILBs need to be good against the run and against the pass. As difficult as that is to find, it's probably harder and more expensive to find disruptive pass rushers. We have to be able to cover the middle of the field with 6 or 7 men, instead of the customary 8 that we commit to the box. As long as we have one-dimensional ILBs, that will continue to be a problem.

I don't know what the contract stuff is but I would expect us to part ways. Definitely been better this year than last but like many have said...a liability in coverage and not much help in blitzing situations. That said he has been a solid tackler and against the run...no complaints there. I expect us to get younger and more versitle at lb in the future.

[dgambill]

I wonder when people will realize that tackle stats don't mean anything.

Not sure that is 100% the case...absolutely some players are naturally going to have more tackles because of their position etc but tackling is the MOST important thing a defensive player can do. Sure there are other things players have to do well but ask Bill Belicheck what his number 1 priority is for players on his defense...and its tackling....it can't be underrated. The defenses job is to get the guy on the ground. If you have a team that doesn't miss tackles and limits yards after catch/contact then I think your going to have a winning defense. Its what Bill looks for....he likes guys that make people miss (Edelman/Welker/Lewis/Brown/Faulk/Vareen etc) and he loves corners and safeties and lbs that can tackle (McCourty, Chung, Ninkovich, Hightower, Bruschi, Vrabel etc). Tackling and making people miss....can't under estimate the value of those players in the league. If you can keep someone in front of you and then come up and make the tackle if you can manage down and distance you have a great chance to win in this league. I know what your saying stats don't tell the whole story etc but if there are stats on tackling percentages etc I'd say that's important. I will say Jackson has been a lot better wrapping up and getting guys on the ground...that's a big plus...but I do recognize we need guys that are a little more athletic and can get from sideline to sideline as well.

[Superman]

Not sure that is 100% the case...absolutely some players are naturally going to have more tackles because of their position etc but tackling is the MOST important thing a defensive player can do. Sure there are other things players have to do well but ask Bill Belicheck what his number 1 priority is for players on his defense...and its tackling....it can't be underrated. The defenses job is to get the guy on the ground. If you have a team that doesn't miss tackles and limits yards after catch/contact then I think your going to have a winning defense. Its what Bill looks for....he likes guys that make people miss (Edelman/Welker/Lewis/Brown/Faulk/Vareen etc) and he loves corners and safeties and lbs that can tackle (McCourty, Chung, Ninkovich, Hightower, Bruschi, Vrabel etc). Tackling and making people miss....can't under estimate the value of those players in the league. If you can keep someone in front of you and then come up and make the tackle if you can manage down and distance you have a great chance to win in this league. I know what your saying stats don't tell the whole story etc but if there are stats on tackling percentages etc I'd say that's important. I will say Jackson has been a lot better wrapping up and getting guys on the ground...that's a big plus...but I do recognize we need guys that are a little more athletic and can get from sideline to sideline as well.

 

Tackle percentage is different from tackles. And it still needs to be put in context.

 

Telling me that because Player A is leading the team or the league in tackles, he must be a good or important player, is just wrong. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

 

As for the importance of tackling, sure, that's how you end plays as a defender. I'm not saying that tackling doesn't matter or isn't important, but that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

[2006Coltsbestever]

So far it's 56-27 in favor of keeping him. I would say that is pretty overwhelming. I thought it would be closer voting wise. I did vote keep him. I think he has played well enough to keep him around.

[Gavin]

Tackle percentage is different from tackles. And it still needs to be put in context.

 

Telling me that because Player A is leading the team or the league in tackles, he must be a good or important player, is just wrong. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

 

As for the importance of tackling, sure, that's how you end plays as a defender. I'm not saying that tackling doesn't matter or isn't important, but that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

I tend to look at TFL's much more

[Superman]

I tend to look at TFL's much more

 

TFLs have more of an impact on the game, but even that number is really raw and needs a lot of context. For instance, a tackle for no gain is basically the same as a tackle for a one yard loss. 

 

Not only that, but getting a TFL doesn't necessarily mean you did anything to make that play. Sure, you made the tackle, but it could have been your teammate closing down his gap and you just standing there waiting for the play to bounce to the outside. The better play was made by someone else, but you get the stat.

[Superman]

So far it's 56-27 in favor of keeping him. I would say that is pretty overwhelming. I thought it would be closer voting wise. I did vote keep him. I think he has played well enough to keep him around.

 

It's kind of funny to me. This board loves to complain about our defense, and to me, Jackson is one of the things holding our defense back, yet two thirds of those who voted want to keep him. The irony is strong...

[2006Coltsbestever]

It's kind of funny to me. This board loves to complain about our defense, and to me, Jackson is one of the things holding our defense back, yet two thirds of those who voted want to keep him. The irony is strong...

I think our Secondary has been the primary reason why our Defense has struggled. We haven't been able to stay healthy. Adams is Good but gets injured a lot, Davis is Great but other than that we don't have much. Toler is Bad, Butler is inconsistent but at least he did get a big INT on Sunday.

[Superman]

I think our Secondary has been the primary reason why our Defense has struggled. We haven't been able to stay healthy. Adams is Good but gets injured a lot, Davis is Great but other than that we don't have much. Toler is Bad, Butler is inconsistent but at least he did get a big INT on Sunday.

 

I disagree. The secondary has been overly stressed because of the substandard pass rush and the poor coverage across the middle. We're putting a safety in the box more and more often to help, playing a single high and sometimes almost zero coverage (if both safeties are less than ten yards from the LOS, that's a zero coverage, IMO). That's part of the reason we play a corner so far back so often, because if we don't, there's no depth to our defense and one missed tackle results in a long TD.

 

It would help greatly to improve the pass rush, and that's a must. But you can still isolate Jackson on TEs and slots. Just line up with a strongside bunch, and Jackson -- the strong inside linebacker -- has to matchup with someone. We typically zone the middle, but as long as we're lopsided to the strongside, a good offense can get someone open quickly, which basically nullifies even a good pass rush. A good QB can eat all day long across the middle of our defense, until we put an extra safety in the box, and then we're weak on the outside in the first ten yards, and over the top.

 

To me, our defense needs better inside pass rush/push, and it needs better initial coverage across the middle. Then we can keep our safety back, keep our corners within range on the outside, and take away the quick hitters. That will slow QBs down, and keep them from stepping up in the pocket to buy time. We'll never be better across the middle with Jackson, IMO.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I disagree. The secondary has been overly stressed because of the substandard pass rush and the poor coverage across the middle. We're putting a safety in the box more and more often to help, playing a single high and sometimes almost zero coverage (if both safeties are less than ten yards from the LOS, that's a zero coverage, IMO). That's part of the reason we play a corner so far back so often, because if we don't, there's no depth to our defense and one missed tackle results in a long TD.

 

It would help greatly to improve the pass rush, and that's a must. But you can still isolate Jackson on TEs and slots. Just line up with a strongside bunch, and Jackson -- the strong inside linebacker -- has to matchup with someone. We typically zone the middle, but as long as we're lopsided to the strongside, a good offense can get someone open quickly, which basically nullifies even a good pass rush. A good QB can eat all day long across the middle of our defense, until we put an extra safety in the box, and then we're weak on the outside in the first ten yards, and over the top.

 

To me, our defense needs better inside pass rush/push, and it needs better initial coverage across the middle. Then we can keep our safety back, keep our corners within range on the outside, and take away the quick hitters. That will slow QBs down, and keep them from stepping up in the pocket to buy time. We'll never be better across the middle with Jackson, IMO.

Well that too regarding not having much of a Pass Rush. That definitely puts more pressure on the Secondary when you don't have a Pass Rush. It was better on Sunday though, Mathis looks like he's getting real healthy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

@Superman, I like Jackson's tackling ability and he is quick in pursuit. The Pass Rushing should fall on the shoulders of Werner and Mathis more than anything and Werner is Bad. Gary Brackett just controlled the middle and that was good enough when he played. We can also get a Pass Rusher or 2 in the Draft as well.

[bleevit]

If leading the league in tackles isn't good enough, then maybe we don't have a clue.

[Superman]

If leading the league in tackles isn't good enough, then maybe we don't have a clue.

 

You're making me angry.

[OffensivelyPC]

You're making me angry.

Have a snickers...

[SteelCityColt]

I disagree. The secondary has been overly stressed because of the substandard pass rush and the poor coverage across the middle. We're putting a safety in the box more and more often to help, playing a single high and sometimes almost zero coverage (if both safeties are less than ten yards from the LOS, that's a zero coverage, IMO). That's part of the reason we play a corner so far back so often, because if we don't, there's no depth to our defense and one missed tackle results in a long TD.

 

It would help greatly to improve the pass rush, and that's a must. But you can still isolate Jackson on TEs and slots. Just line up with a strongside bunch, and Jackson -- the strong inside linebacker -- has to matchup with someone. We typically zone the middle, but as long as we're lopsided to the strongside, a good offense can get someone open quickly, which basically nullifies even a good pass rush. A good QB can eat all day long across the middle of our defense, until we put an extra safety in the box, and then we're weak on the outside in the first ten yards, and over the top.

 

To me, our defense needs better inside pass rush/push, and it needs better initial coverage across the middle. Then we can keep our safety back, keep our corners within range on the outside, and take away the quick hitters. That will slow QBs down, and keep them from stepping up in the pocket to buy time. We'll never be better across the middle with Jackson, IMO.

 

In the sort of situation described it sounds like we'd be better off subbing in a S for Jackson and going with 3. Most likely a SS type who's good enough against the run but can also cover... like what we hoped to be getting with Geathers I guess? 

[SteelCityColt]

If leading the league in tackles isn't good enough, then maybe we don't have a clue.

 

I think you diagnosed the root cause of the issue with your statement within the statement itself. 

[bababooey]

NFL leading Tackler

Enough Said

Can be a misleading stat. Leading tackler because he's on the field so much. Not even looking up the list of tackles this year but one would assume that much better players are much further down because they aren't on the field as often.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I think he has been better this year last year I would have said yes, this year its a no!

[Superman]

In the sort of situation described it sounds like we'd be better off subbing in a S for Jackson and going with 3. Most likely a SS type who's good enough against the run but can also cover... like what we hoped to be getting with Geathers I guess? 

 

I assumed that was the plan when they started calling him a dimeback. But a) he got hurt, and b) Jackson calls the defense. Kind of a difficult situation to navigate, logistically. Only one player can receive the calls in his helmet. 

 

We need an every down ILB who can take the calls and get everyone lined up. Freeman did it his first two years here, with Bethea's help.

[OLD FAN MAN]

imo he is above average, keep him until we find someone elite

[ColtStronger]

I'm saying let him go.

 

He's playing really well right now against the run, but he can't cover anyone. He'll be 33 early next season, and is more likely to experience decline than he is to keep playing at the same level, which is already less than adequate overall. Even in a limited role, he can still be exploited.

 

Our biggest defensive weakness is rushing the passer, and the second biggest weakness is covering the middle of the field. Those are not complementary weaknesses if we want to be a top ten defense. As a matter of fact, they work in concert to weaken the effectiveness of the defense overall.

 

It's asking for a lot, but our ILBs need to be good against the run and against the pass. As difficult as that is to find, it's probably harder and more expensive to find disruptive pass rushers. We have to be able to cover the middle of the field with 6 or 7 men, instead of the customary 8 that we commit to the box. As long as we have one-dimensional ILBs, that will continue to be a problem.

This is a tough one.  All of your points are valid, and makes sense why we should let him go.  Personally I'm torn on the subject.  He is playing really well against the run, but last season I feel we were ripped off by his performance.  He's not good at coverage.  On the contrary Freeman is probably just as good and cheaper, but covers a little bit better.  Therefore I wouldn't have a problem if we let DQ walk.  I wouldn't mind bringing him back either though.  Especially as depth.  Our biggest need on defense is creating a pass rush.  Mathis will be gone within 2 years, maybe this season.  I think it's time to get an elite pass rusher or 2 that WILL create pressure and get us off the field on 3rd downs.  We can't continue to not get pressure and let teams convert easily when stopping them on 1st and 2nd. 

[BProland85]

Try and replace him with Jaylon Smith in the draft and this defense is so much better especially in pass defense.