Luck lethal from clean pocket: Bears @ Colts PFF Grades

[zibby43]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-chi-ind-grades/

 

As much as people were bemoaning the offensive line play, the Colts offensive line allowed only 7 total pressures on 49 dropbacks.

 

That is excellent and something to build on.

 

Quarterback grade: Andrew Luck, 82.1

 

Andrew Luck lethal from clean pocket

While Andrew Luck slightly struggled under pressure against the Bears, he was nearly unstoppable when Chicago was unable to move him off his spot. He completed 25 of his 32 passes for 265 yards from a clean pocket, and both his touchdown passes came on plays when he was not under pressure. Furthermore, he was extremely accurate on throws downfield, as he completed 10 of 14 attempts that traveled 10 or more yards from the line of scrimmage. All in all, this game once again proved that Luck is among the best quarterbacks in the league when he gets the protection he needs from his offensive line.

 

Top offensive grades:

LT Anthony Castonzo 82.5

WR T.Y. Hilton 82.2

LG Jack Mewhort 76.3

TE Dwayne Allen 65.5

RB Frank Gore 63.7

 

Offensive line plays major role in win

Although the offensive line struggled in opening holes for running back Frank Gore, its performance in protecting Andrew Luck was crucial for the Colts. The unit allowed only seven total pressures on 49 dropbacks, and was able to maintain a clean pocket for Luck for the better part of the afternoon. Wide receiver T.Y. Hilton also had a solid outing, lining up all over the field and winning matchups against numerous Bears’ defenders; Hilton caught 10 of his 11 targets, including the game-winning touchdown pass on a post route.

 

Top defensive grades:

OLB Erik Walden 79.0

NT T.Y. McGill 73.2

CB Darius Butler 72.0

DE Hassan Ridgeway 69.0

CB Vontae Davis 68.2

[BOTT]

He wasn't under pressure on his TD pass to TY?  Wasn't he hit just after he threw it?

[NewColtsFan]

10 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-chi-ind-grades/

 

As much as people were bemoaning the offensive line play, the Colts offensive line allowed only 7 total pressures on 49 dropbacks.

 

That is excellent and something to build on.

 

Quarterback grade: Andrew Luck, 82.1

 

Andrew Luck lethal from clean pocket

While Andrew Luck slightly struggled under pressure against the Bears, he was nearly unstoppable when Chicago was unable to move him off his spot. He completed 25 of his 32 passes for 265 yards from a clean pocket, and both his touchdown passes came on plays when he was not under pressure. Furthermore, he was extremely accurate on throws downfield, as he completed 10 of 14 attempts that traveled 10 or more yards from the line of scrimmage. All in all, this game once again proved that Luck is among the best quarterbacks in the league when he gets the protection he needs from his offensive line.

 

Top offensive grades:

LT Anthony Castonzo 82.5

WR T.Y. Hilton 82.2

LG Jack Mewhort 76.3

TE Dwayne Allen 65.5

RB Frank Gore 63.7

 

Offensive line plays major role in win

Although the offensive line struggled in opening holes for running back Frank Gore, its performance in protecting Andrew Luck was crucial for the Colts. The unit allowed only seven total pressures on 49 dropbacks, and was able to maintain a clean pocket for Luck for the better part of the afternoon. Wide receiver T.Y. Hilton also had a solid outing, lining up all over the field and winning matchups against numerous Bears’ defenders; Hilton caught 10 of his 11 targets, including the game-winning touchdown pass on a post route.

 

Top defensive grades:

OLB Erik Walden 79.0

NT T.Y. McGill 73.2

CB Darius Butler 72.0

DE Hassan Ridgeway 69.0

CB Vontae Davis 68.2

 

This doesn't seem to make sense,  or add up.

 

CBS kept showing graphics with the number of sacks,  pressures and hits.      The numbers were not pretty.

 

 

[adamthyst]

I'm not sure if we were watching the same game as PFF. Luck was getting pressured and sacked for days. 

[Indyfan4life]

1 minute ago, MOB said:

I'm not sure if we were watching the same game as PFF. Luck was getting pressured and sacked for days. 

I think they only grade it on certain types of plays. Not every offensive snap. 

 

Off topic: is your avatar Alexa Bliss? 

[adamthyst]

54 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

I think they only grade it on certain types of plays. Not every offensive snap. 

 

Off topic: is your avatar Alexa Bliss? 

 

In that case, I can see that. I thought they were doing fine with run blocking, but pass blocking, not so much. I felt scared for Luck after every snap because of Willie Mays.

 

OT: Yes. Love her little Bliss stuff.

[NorthernBlue]

Just now, MOB said:

 

In that case, I can see that. I thought they were doing fine with run blocking, but pass blocking, not so much. I felt scared for Luck after every snap because of Willie Mays.

 

OT: Yes. Love her little Bliss stuff.

You mean Willy Young?

[adamthyst]

Just now, NorthernBlue said:

You mean Willy Young?

Yeah, that's what I meant. Apologies.

 

I really wish we kept Freeman too. Seeing him in that Bears uniform stung a little because we could have kept him.

[NorthernBlue]

Just now, MOB said:

Yeah, that's what I meant. Apologies.

 

I really wish we kept Freeman too. Seeing him in that Bears uniform stung a little because we could have kept him.

Especially with Indy's situation at ILB right now.

[adamthyst]

Just now, NorthernBlue said:

Especially with Indy's situation at ILB right now.

We are simply not producing on defense at all. I don't even see Mathis out there either, it's pretty much showing his age and the effect of his injuries on him with how we can't get production on the DL.

[bigt]

I read the same PFF article and noticed that Hoyer actually graded out higher than luck with the same scenarios today.  So, good job by each QB today.  Also noticed that Freeman and Trevathon (sp?) scored very well compared to our ILB's.  Probably one of the big reasons they had a much better running game today.

 

Ridgeway seems to be coming along quite nicely and Butler > Robinson.

[NorthernBlue]

Just now, bigt said:

I read the same PFF article and noticed that Hoyer actually graded out higher than luck with the same scenarios today.  So, good job by each QB today.  Also noticed that Freeman and Trevathon (sp?) scored very well compared to our ILB's.  Probably one of the big reasons they had a much better running game today.

 

Ridgeway seems to be coming along quite nicely and Butler > Robinson.

Butler has quietly put up a pretty good season, despite the injuries that he's dealt with.

[21isSuperman]

I think their numbers are wrong.  I believe the Bears got 6 sacks against us.  Add in the hits and QB pressures to those sacks and Luck was under a lot of pressure today.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

The ebars sacked him 6. These numbers are nonsense. No earthly way they somehow only pressured Luck on one other play besides the sacks. 

[Superman]

The protection wasn't that great, but it wasn't awful either. (High bar we have, huh?) Unlike last week, I think most of the pressures and hits came after a couple seconds, not right away. I haven't gone back to rewatch yet, but I didn't think Luck got pressured and hit that often, maybe 10, including the 5 sacks. There were also a handful of plays where Luck had all day to throw, and a couple where he bought more time with good pocket movement. They also didn't give up a lot of pressure up the middle, which allowed Luck to step up and run a few times. 

 

No one should be satisfied with this performance, but there were some positives. AC looked like a good LT again; hopefully the right side gets it together.

[dudeski]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This doesn't seem to make sense,  or add up.

 

CBS kept showing graphics with the number of sacks,  pressures and hits.      The numbers were not pretty.

 

 

Pff doesn't add up?   Hmm shocking

[JColts72]

Our line is the worst. As a fantasy player, it may help to pick other teams D when they play the Colts since they are a given to give up 6 sacks a game..

[krunk]

I'll be glad when Moncrief gets back.  That will open things up a bit more for Dorsett as well.  TY is the main target as it stands right now.

[Lef]

Curious of the breakdown of sacks while running no-huddle offense versus regular offense. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Valpo2004]

Looking at PFF's table it looks like they are only defining pressure as plays where Andrew Luck threw the ball.

 

So if Andrew Luck ran the ball or got sacked they didn't count it.  

 

It says he was pressured on 13 of his total drop backs with 7 attempts, 3 completions for 56 yards.

[OffensivelyPC]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This doesn't seem to make sense,  or add up.

 

CBS kept showing graphics with the number of sacks,  pressures and hits.      The numbers were not pretty.

 

 

Yeah,I agree.  There is going to be some discrepancy because some of those stats are like tackles, there will be some variation depending on which site you're looking at.  But there should be no reason the variation is that wide.  In any case, I tend to agree with CBS' accounting for pressure.  Luck was on the run all day.  You don't give up 5 sacks and only 7 pressures very often and have it actually make sense.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Yeah,I agree.  There is going to be some discrepancy because some of those stats are like tackles, there will be some variation depending on which site you're looking at.  But there should be no reason the variation is that wide.  In any case, I tend to agree with CBS' accounting for pressure.  Luck was on the run all day.  You don't give up 5 sacks and only 7 pressures very often and have it actually make sense.

 

They where not counting the sacks as pressures.  

 

They only counted it as a pressure if Luck actually threw the ball under pressure.  So it wasn't counted if he was sacked or ran for yards.   That's how they came up with that number.  Overall they counted 13 pressures on Luck's drop backs.  That combines sacks, throws and runs.  

 

You have to look at the link but there is a table there that makes it clear how they came to that number.  

 

Now I agree it's a weird way of doing things.  

[OffensivelyPC]

7 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

They where not counting the sacks as pressures.  

 

They only counted it as a pressure if Luck actually threw the ball under pressure.  So it wasn't counted if he was sacked or ran for yards.   That's how they came up with that number.  Overall they counted 13 pressures on Luck's drop backs.  That combines sacks, throws and runs.  

 

You have to look at the link but there is a table there that makes it clear how they came to that number.  

 

Now I agree it's a weird way of doing things.  

Yeah, Well that makes a bit more sense.  I always knew it depended on the speaker as to whether sacks were included in pressures...to me, I only think it makes sense to include sacks under pressures.  It's hard to count pressures where he ran for yards because it's not always clear whether he ran because of said pressure.  But there's no doubt to me that any time you're sacked, you're under pressure.  

 

13 pressures on 49 dropbacks (I think that was the number I saw without referring to it) is just not a good day.  It could certainly be worse, but you'd like to see that number drop closer to 10%-15% or less.

[Coltswarriors]

IIRC, Luck was under pressure on the TY TD. Didn't he have to step up and then he got hit right after the ball left his hands?

[Valpo2004]

47 minutes ago, Coltswarriors said:

IIRC, Luck was under pressure on the TY TD. Didn't he have to step up and then he got hit right after the ball left his hands?

 

I'm not sure but just before the ball left his hand I was sure he was gonna get hit.  Looked to me like he got the ball out just in the nick of time.  A tenth of a second later and he's hit while he throws and the ball is inaccurate at best.  

[GhostofJohnnyU]

Recognizing the statistical vagaries of how PFF got their numbers, 6 sacks (or 5 according to ESPN) was/is way too many for a "contending" team to allow.  Luck's mobility got him out of several  situations, as he is credited with 5 carries (does not include sacks).  I don't  remember them dialing up a tunning play for him all game.  Add the 7 hurries, 6 (or 5) sacks, and 5 carries, which I believe were scrambles, and the picture doesn't look so good for the OL.

 

Besides all that stuff, the eye test tells me Luck was in jeopardy virtually every time he dropped back.  

[BullsColtsFan1]

12 hours ago, BOTT said:

He wasn't under pressure on his TD pass to TY?  Wasn't he hit just after he threw it?

I thought he was under pressure as well

[zibby43]

This forum's viewpoint has become skewed.  

 

The Bears' front 7 is good, and there were multiple times in the game where Luck had plenty of time to throw.  And on those occasions, he hit a few big plays downfield.

 

The line's performance wasn't perfect but gone are the days where Luck gets crushed immediately by a Double A gap blitz up the middle.

 

Someone find a team that had at least 49 dropbacks and 0 sacks from yesterday.

[Defjamz26]

I could care less what PFF says. 6 sacks is way too many for the line to be giving up. You typically don't win games when your QB is sacked a lot. Just ask Cam Newton or Aaron Rodgers.

[adamthyst]

How much longer until Moncrief is back from his injury?

[cbear]

There are sacks and pressures and then there are SACKS and PRESSURES!  

 

IMO, I count sacks and pressures when they get to Andrew under 3 seconds.  3 or longer and I don't count that against the o line.  That's on Andrew for holding it too long or the WRs for not getting open or the game plan having too many long developing plays.  

 

I haven't watched the replay yet but I think only a couple sacks I'd blame on the online.  Same with the pressures/hits. 

 

 

[krunk]

5 minutes ago, MOB said:

How much longer until Moncrief is back from his injury?

That's what I want to know.  We'll put up points more consistently I think when Crief gets back.  More things for the opposing D to worry about.

[bigt]

Saw on the stat line that Luck was 28 for 39 against the Bears without Moncrief.  Also saw that Brady was 28 for 40 against the Browns with a full house.  Looks like Luck > Brady on completion percentage despite all the pressures (this week at least)..  That makes me smile.

[lollygagger8]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

The protection wasn't that great, but it wasn't awful either. (High bar we have, huh?) Unlike last week, I think most of the pressures and hits came after a couple seconds, not right away. I haven't gone back to rewatch yet, but I didn't think Luck got pressured and hit that often, maybe 10, including the 5 sacks. There were also a handful of plays where Luck had all day to throw, and a couple where he bought more time with good pocket movement. They also didn't give up a lot of pressure up the middle, which allowed Luck to step up and run a few times. 

 

No one should be satisfied with this performance, but there were some positives. AC looked like a good LT again; hopefully the right side gets it together.

 

5 sacks in one game. Not accounting for all the hurries, or Luck's magical ability to evade defenders. 

 

The previous game the O-Line allowed 6 sacks. 

 

How is that not awful? 

[BCoop]

1 minute ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

5 sacks in one game. The previous game the O-Line allowed 6 sacks. 

 

How is that not awful? 

 

Context is important. 

 

We're still running a lot of plays that require 3-5 seconds of route development before Luck has an option to throw. At least 2 of those sacks were plays when we were in 3rd and short scenarios and all our WRs were 15+ yards downfield. The coaching staff needs to do a better job of identifying those situations and making sure Andrew has quick release options underneath. They've gotten better, but 11 sacks in 2 weeks makes it apparent that they need to do more. And throwing Josh Ferguson out in the flat isn't good enough.

[Dustin]

7 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

5 sacks in one game. Not accounting for all the hurries, or Luck's magical ability to evade defenders. 

 

The previous game the O-Line allowed 6 sacks. 

 

How is that not awful? 

 

Because basically all the sacks were like 4 seconds after the ball was snapped.

[lollygagger8]

7 minutes ago, BCoop said:

 

Context is important. 

 

We're still running a lot of plays that require 3-5 seconds of route development before Luck has an option to throw. At least 2 of those sacks were plays when we were in 3rd and short scenarios and all our WRs were 15+ yards downfield. The coaching staff needs to do a better job of identifying those situations and making sure Andrew has quick release options underneath. They've gotten better, but 11 sacks in 2 weeks makes it apparent that they need to do more. And throwing Josh Ferguson out in the flat isn't good enough.

 

Agree, the coaching staff isn't helping Luck at all. 

 

I feel like a broken record. 

 

Run a screen 

ROLL LUCK OUT OF THE POCKET 

Chip the DE's with your RB's and TE's and help out your rookie RT

Why are there no quick slants in this offense? 

Stop forcing Josh Ferguson into the lineup! 

Run some crossing routes 

When it's 3rd and 8, stop throwing 4 yard passes

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, BCoop said:

 

Context is important. 

 

We're still running a lot of plays that require 3-5 seconds of route development before Luck has an option to throw. At least 2 of those sacks were plays when we were in 3rd and short scenarios and all our WRs were 15+ yards downfield. The coaching staff needs to do a better job of identifying those situations and making sure Andrew has quick release options underneath. They've gotten better, but 11 sacks in 2 weeks makes it apparent that they need to do more. And throwing Josh Ferguson out in the flat isn't good enough.

 

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

Because basically all the sacks were like 4 seconds after the ball was snapped.

 

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

5 sacks in one game. Not accounting for all the hurries, or Luck's magical ability to evade defenders. 

 

The previous game the O-Line allowed 6 sacks. 

 

How is that not awful? 

 

See above.