To give a little perspective on Denver's D (found on Stampedeblue comments)

[VaAllDay757]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

That being the case -- and it's a legitimate point -- the gameplan and play calling were generally awful yesterday. Seeing the Broncos make plays doesn't bug me, because they're really good, but the offense missed a bunch of opportunities. 

^^^This guy gets it

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

Is it the offensive playcalling, or is it Luck?  Last year, I think Sunday Night Football had a visual showing Hasselbeck had something like the 7th fastest time in the league from snap to throw, but Luck was 6th slowest.  And I think both times were under Chud.  So I don't know if Chud is calling plays with deeper routes because of Luck's superior arm strength compared to Hasselbeck, or if this is Luck's problem and he isn't getting the ball out on time

Because Luck just likes to hold the ball looking for more. I'm gonna get called a troll but he does a little Gunslinger streak in him. Maybe he can get it out an elite quickness level but it hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it does soon 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Is it the offensive playcalling, or is it Luck?  Last year, I think Sunday Night Football had a visual showing Hasselbeck had something like the 7th fastest time in the league from snap to throw, but Luck was 6th slowest.  And I think both times were under Chud.  So I don't know if Chud is calling plays with deeper routes because of Luck's superior arm strength compared to Hasselbeck, or if this is Luck's problem and he isn't getting the ball out on time

 

The Colts offense under Luck has generally been a slow to throw offense, with mostly positive results. A big difference between him and Hasselbeck is that Luck can actually throw downfield with effectiveness, so waiting for routes to develop makes sense. He's also more of a gun slinger. The Colts were extra concerned with keeping Hasselbeck protected and not trying to ask him to carry the team. I say all of this to point out that it's not a good comparison, IMO.

 

That said, I think Luck missed opportunities for some shorter throws. That's from my vantage point. We all saw him miss a handful of throws. Allen short-armed one, which irritated me. And they didn't call any screens or cut the edges. 

 

I don't think it's necessarily in Luck's nature to take the easier throws, I think he wants to make the big play when possible. I don't have a problem with that, because big plays are a good thing. But it does bother me when people say 'Luck got hit X times, that means the protection is bad.' We take the good with the bad; as a playmaker, he holds the ball longer, that means he'll get hit more. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, WoolMagnet said:

I it's not that big a request when comparing ware/Miller to ALL other combos in the league.  These two are way above the others.  My point was we're close even with no help from the defense.  I think we've all noticed a marked improvement in our OL which should only improve with reps.

actually, less than a second would have worked in some.  I can picture Hilton open for a touchdown on one play that a split second more was all that was needed.

 

Look back at the interception. Luck had plenty of time. He could have even held the ball longer if he wanted, just had to step to the left a little bit. And he had a dumpoff to either side, if he wanted to check down. It was third and long, the read should be "first down, checkdown", especially when the play doesn't send anyone across the intermediate middle. The score was 16-13, the ball was at the Colts 35, and there were 14 minutes left. 

 

Just saying, I don't think the protection was a major issue for most of the game. They got pushed back a little, but they didn't yield pressures and hits for the most part. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

What else can you ask of the defense yesterday?  They gave up 7 points and a couple field goals.  I don't even think Carolinas "Elite Defense" did that. Did They?

 

Tackle. Sio Moore is falling out of favor with me. He gave up two first downs due to missed tackles, including at least one on on third down (don't remember if the other was third down or not). Cromartie couldn't stop DT on the other reach play, which is understandable because DT is a big boy, but still, get him down and you get off the field. So, what else can you ask? Tackle better. 

[gacoop1]

Colts need to overhaul the team.  The GM/Coaches need to go and get replacement.  This is the only way the colts can be competitive.....Somebody teach Luck how to throw non batted balls....

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Coltfreak said:

Exactly.  You don't go into a game with a great Defense and serious pass rushers and expect this mediocre OL To be able to block while Luck is in 7 Step drops and the long ball almost every play 

 

where is all the short quick passes?  Isn't Luck averaging almost 4 seconds to get it out of his hand?   This is poor game plan. Not sure who's fault it is. Luck? Chud? Pags?   But at any rate I hate this offense

This offense is loaded with playmakers and no one is taking advantage of it 

 

Especially at the end of the game when you know the pass rushers are going to pin their ears back and come full speed. Gotta help on Miller, no two ways about it.

 

I thought the protection was good enough for most of the game, and I felt that there weren't a lot of deep shots taken. They probably weren't open; the Broncos have a good secondary and don't like to get beat deep. Lots of intermediate stuff, 15+ yards and so on. And the time was there, for the most part, just didn't connect enough.

 

What hurt was all the batted passes, because there were some yards and first downs to be gained if those passes get home. There are ways to counter that, and the Colts didn't use most of them (cuts, screens, etc.), the ones they did use didn't work so well (move the QB). Bad offensive strategy, for sure, against a great defense.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, gacoop1 said:

Somebody teach Luck how to throw non batted balls....

 

How about you do it.

[gacoop1]

I'd be happy too and i bet you i can do better with 1% of his contract.........

[jet1968]

considering oppossing defenses only have to plan for the passing game, Luck does fine.  Super Bowl champs usually have 2 things in common- they can run the ball and they can play defense. Find a running game and play some defense and things will look up for Luck

[21isSuperman]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts offense under Luck has generally been a slow to throw offense, with mostly positive results. A big difference between him and Hasselbeck is that Luck can actually throw downfield with effectiveness, so waiting for routes to develop makes sense. He's also more of a gun slinger. The Colts were extra concerned with keeping Hasselbeck protected and not trying to ask him to carry the team. I say all of this to point out that it's not a good comparison, IMO.

 

That said, I think Luck missed opportunities for some shorter throws. That's from my vantage point. We all saw him miss a handful of throws. Allen short-armed one, which irritated me. And they didn't call any screens or cut the edges. 

 

I don't think it's necessarily in Luck's nature to take the easier throws, I think he wants to make the big play when possible. I don't have a problem with that, because big plays are a good thing. But it does bother me when people say 'Luck got hit X times, that means the protection is bad.' We take the good with the bad; as a playmaker, he holds the ball longer, that means he'll get hit more. 

 

Fair enough.  I just remember people saying Chud's offense would get the ball out of the QB's hands faster, and it worked for Hasselbeck, but it seems like Luck has been holding onto the ball a lot during his entire pro career.  At first, people said it was Arians' offense.  Then they said Pep was putting him in bad situations.  Then they say Chud would solve it, but the issue remains.

 

Regarding the Allen short-arming the catch, he was scared of getting hit.  I've noticed Luck has a tendency to lead his receivers into big hits.  I didn't like Allen short-arming it, but it seems like Luck has really been leading his receivers into big hits this year.  He's obviously not doing it on purpose, but it's something I've noticed he's done in the two games this year.

[krunk]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Tackle. Sio Moore is falling out of favor with me. He gave up two first downs due to missed tackles, including at least one on on third down (don't remember if the other was third down or not). Cromartie couldn't stop DT on the other reach play, which is understandable because DT is a big boy, but still, get him down and you get off the field. So, what else can you ask? Tackle better. 

Yeah that, but overall I was just speaking about the circumstances we were under yesterday. Sio Moore seems kind of inconsistent. Hot and Cold type of guy so far. Hopefully he will put it all together. Problem is we don't have much else to challenge him. Maybe Edwin Jackson, or Mcnary I guess.

 

[WoolMagnet]

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Look back at the interception. Luck had plenty of time. He could have even held the ball longer if he wanted, just had to step to the left a little bit. And he had a dumpoff to either side, if he wanted to check down. It was third and long, the read should be "first down, checkdown", especially when the play doesn't send anyone across the intermediate middle. The score was 16-13, the ball was at the Colts 35, and there were 14 minutes left. 

 

Just saying, I don't think the protection was a major issue for most of the game. They got pushed back a little, but they didn't yield pressures and hits for the most part. 

Must be a different play. The play I'm referring to, Andrew was under pressure.

i agree the OL did a decent job.  It was a combination of great pass rush and top-notch defense of the Broncos.  They are after all the best defense in the league.

[RockThatBlue]

6 hours ago, Malakai432 said:

Many are complaining about Luck, some trolls stating he is the problem must've not seen how Rodgers played against Minnesota!?  Yes, good QBs can play like turtle crap against an elite defense. 

This. Denver has one of the best defenses in NFL history. They made a lot of QBs play horrible last year, and they are going to do the same this year. Its really amazing how good they are, especially in an era where the rules mostly go against defenses. And they are still dominant.

[oldunclemark]

3 hours ago, gacoop1 said:

Colts need to overhaul the team.  The GM/Coaches need to go and get replacement.  This is the only way the colts can be competitive.....Somebody teach Luck how to throw non batted balls....

you're panicking

[oldunclemark]

I think we can block San Diego's front..

......and Jacksonville isn't as awesome as many thought..

 

...we'll come back...

[AZColt11]

I think the topic of this thread says it all.  You can't spell Denver without the 'D'.  Their really really friggin good.  they do that to every team, especially at home.  Deal with it.  You don't think they won the superbowl last year on Peyton's arm, do ya?

[bayone]

11 hours ago, krunk said:

Keep in mind he was playing our backups to the backups and doing that stuff.  I think at some point this year he'll have a pretty bad game and they'll replace him with Paxton Lynch.  Just my gut feeling!  Demariyous Thomas was already on an article on NFL.com talking about they need to score more points.  If the production keeps remaining low and they lose a game or two(could be sunday against cincy maybe) I think they may call the Sand Man out for him. Just my take on the issue.

 

agree sooner or later its Lynch

 

I also read something , maybe same article that u did on DT, but it want just about not scoring points which may have been the instigation of this follow up, but believe DT said regarding the emphasis on the run game

when u spend so much money on the best WR duo u are just wasting it if u dont use us , ,

 

with hindsight they could have drafted a good OL in that first round or a stud interior DE to replace Malik Jackson and got Dak prescott in the 3rd round before Dallas took him in the 4th,. they were also high on Dak supposedly

 

who knows , lynches ceiling and athleticism is supposedly high, no peyton , I really dont care how they pan out

 

and the D may love winning but sooner or later u are going to fall and like us , injuries starting to hit
 

RT Stephenson out with bad calf 2-4 weeks, Ware & for him I feel bad out 5-6 weeks forearm surgery, already lost Vance walker who was slated to start & replace Malik, etc etc

[Restored]

I was at the game and as much I understand how good Denver's defense is, Luck flat out missed on a number of throws where he had time to make them and where guys were open. I remember a few big misses down the middle to Allen/Doyle and a few out routes to TY and Moncrief specifically.

[Malakai432]

18 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

This. Denver has one of the best defenses in NFL history. They made a lot of QBs play horrible last year, and they are going to do the same this year. Its really amazing how good they are, especially in an era where the rules mostly go against defenses. And they are still dominant.

 Yeah Minnesota's D looks nasty loaded with a lot of #1 picks though, it must be nice.