Frank Gore Made our Offense One dimensional

[Peterk2011]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't get this thinking. He had 93 carries behind a very bad OL in a very disjointed offense, and he's being written off because he doesn't have great vision like Gore.

 

We haven't seen enough of Mack to know whether he can be more than a change back. And even if he's at his best as a change back, we know that he has more big play potential than anyone we've had in a long time. Pair him with a more steady back and get him in the right scheme, and we might have a very dangerous backfield combo.

 

You use to call out other posters if they twist your words Superman. I didn't say I wrote him off. What I said was, that I think he is not good enough (yet) between the tackles. I could bring stats like yards after contact in this gap or that gap, to the left or to the right, but all will tell the same which we all saw with our own eyes: Mack couldn't get those extra yards after contact, in traffic between the tackles, what Gore could get consistently.

 

Will he learn that? We'll see. My gut feeling watching 30+ years of NFL football is, that if someone has got the knack of finding those holes, that's noticeable right from the beginning, but I can be wrong. I wish I am wrong.

 

But even if I am not, I wont write him off. He still can be a usable piece as change back. But not the bell cow.

[A8bil]

20 minutes ago, colt18 said:

wth lol

 

 

Our offense was going to be one dimensional with Luck no matter what. Defenses keyed in on Gore and dared Brissett to win on his arm, not hard to comprehend.

I think you meant "without Luck" but agree 100%.  That is football 101 around the league.  Shut down known threat and let newbie show he can beat you.  Don't change unless he does.  Brissett showed he was tough, but he never got the defenses on their heels.  Hard to do that with his level of experience in a new system, but you have diagnosed the issue correctly.  

[A8bil]

10 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

You use to call out other posters if they twist your words Superman. I didn't say I wrote him off. What I said was, that I think he is not good enough (yet) between the tackles. I could bring stats like yards after contact in this gap or that gap, to the left or to the right, but all will tell the same which we all saw with our own eyes: Mack couldn't get those extra yards after contact, in traffic between the tackles, what Gore could get consistently.

 

Will he learn that? We'll see. My gut feeling watching 30+ years of NFL football is, that if someone has got the knack of finding those holes, that's noticeable right from the beginning, but I can be wrong. I wish I am wrong.

 

But even if I am not, I wont write him off. He still can be a usable piece as change back. But not the bell cow.

I would have said the same thing 7 years ago, but when the 49ers brought in Kendall Hunter, his running style was a lot like Mack's...sweeps with one cut up field.  Took him about 1.5 years to learn from Gore how to run between the tackles, but after awhile it became hard to tell the difference between the two.  Maybe Mack won't learn how to read the blocks developing, but I think he can given how hunter developed.  Too bad he blew out his achilles.

[Dingus McGirt]

Hmm...tell me - given the limitations of the current CBA, when will anyone have the time to teach "running between the tackles?"

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

Predictable was Pep running it up the gut on 1st and 2nd down, then trying to hit a long-developing pass downfield but taking a sack because the D ignores the play-action...

Honestly, I dont see a difference between a Pep ran offense and a Chud ran offense, we seem to still do the run up the gut on 1st and 2nd. We dont run many quick developing pass plays either

[Peterk2011]

9 minutes ago, A8bil said:

I would have said the same thing 7 years ago, but when the 49ers brought in Kendall Hunter, his running style was a lot like Mack's...sweeps with one cut up field.  Took him about 1.5 years to learn from Gore how to run between the tackles, but after awhile it became hard to tell the difference between the two.  Maybe Mack won't learn how to read the blocks developing, but I think he can given how hunter developed.  Too bad he blew out his achilles.

 

Yeah, there are exceptions. Let's hope Mack will be the next one

[ColtsBlitz]

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

The Colts are a passing team and a long ball passing team. Without a passer the team is three and out. Mack is a bit of a disappointment so far and frankly without Gore right now the Colts would be frozen. The play calling has been way to predictable. I wonder what the Colts will do with Gore. He definitely wants to continue to play. Keep in mind the OL rarely opens up anything so Gore pushes people for his yards. 

On the contrary, I think he’s been impressive thus far. He does have the most negative yardage runs among all rookie backs, but not all backs had nearly the same amount of game changing plays. The 49ers game is a perfect example when he basically won us the game in overtime and had a TD

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Honestly, I dont see a difference between a Pep ran offense and a Chud ran offense, we seem to still do the run up the gut on 1st and 2nd. We dont run many quick developing pass plays either

 

I agree, but Chud has at least been able to utilize Doyle on some quick-hitters from Luck/Brissett.  It also helps that he has Gore running up the middle as opposed to Pep trying to use Trent Richardson...

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I agree, but Chud has at least been able to utilize Doyle on some quick-hitters from Luck/Brissett.  It also helps that he has Gore running up the middle as opposed to Pep trying to use Trent Richardson...

Perhaps, but the argument can be made that Pep did the same with Fleener and Allen even.....

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

You use to call out other posters if they twist your words Superman. I didn't say I wrote him off. What I said was, that I think he is not good enough (yet) between the tackles. I could bring stats like yards after contact in this gap or that gap, to the left or to the right, but all will tell the same which we all saw with our own eyes: Mack couldn't get those extra yards after contact, in traffic between the tackles, what Gore could get consistently.

 

Will he learn that? We'll see. My gut feeling watching 30+ years of NFL football is, that if someone has got the knack of finding those holes, that's noticeable right from the beginning, but I can be wrong. I wish I am wrong.

 

But even if I am not, I wont write him off. He still can be a usable piece as change back. But not the bell cow.

 

You didn't say you wrote him off, and I don't mean to twist your words. But your post came across to me as if you think that what he is now is what he will be. You said he was expected to be Gore's successor, and that's premature because a) Gore is still here, and b) Mack got less than 7 carries a game. 

 

Mack probably won't ever be able to run between the tackles like Gore can. But I do think any player still in the infancy of their pro career still has a lot to learn, and with more opportunities, Mack can be expected to improve.

 

It's just odd to me, because any disappointment I have with Mack is specific to the way he was used, not with the way he played. I don't need him to be Gore 2.0, a bell cow, between the tackles runner. I'm more interested in his ability as a change back, because the complementary, dynamic player in open space is what I think we've been missing for a long time. We need a staff that knows how to deploy that player.

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

Before you all pick up your stones to throw my way hear me out. The first three years without Gore our offense was really creative under Bruce and Pep. We were also climbing heights into the playoffs stopping short of a Superbowl. Then the first year under Gore our offense creativity vanished because we relied to much on Gore which is not a bad thing but it made us more predictable on offense. I believe Gores second year we had Andre Johnson which made our offense as a unit even more predictable thus our records for both years spoke for themselves 8-8. Now This year i noticed how the saints after acquiring Peterson realized that there offense was becoming predictable so after releasing him there creativity which we once had returned and look at them now sitting pretty in the playoffs. That being said I know we didn't have luck for much of last year and all of this year but i feel we shot ourselves in the foot when we didn't go out and get a good back draft wise during Peps tenure or during the first year of having Gore and i feel it could have made us more dangerous.  now you may throw the stones.

I hope Mr Gore visits you in your sleep tonight.

 

[lollygagger8]

52 minutes ago, IinD said:

You'd think having all pros like Vujo, Person and Haeg would make Gore and Mack look awesome.

 

I blame Frank as well. He should have done more running behind those beasts.

[Peterk2011]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You didn't say you wrote him off, and I don't mean to twist your words. But your post came across to me as if you think that what he is now is what he will be. You said he was expected to be Gore's successor, and that's premature because a) Gore is still here, and b) Mack got less than 7 carries a game. 

 

Mack probably won't ever be able to run between the tackles like Gore can. But I do think any player still in the infancy of their pro career still has a lot to learn, and with more opportunities, Mack can be expected to improve.

 

I don't follow college football, so I didn't know Mack before we drafted him. I based all my expectations on reading this forum. My overall impression was that Mack was drafted to be Gore's successor. A guy who can take Gore's role, and as an extra, he is also flashy, quick and has big play ability.

 

My expectation was the above. And then, I didn't see that player on the field. That was a bit of a disappointment honestly. And still is. You can't do much about it. If you've been promised to get a Ferrari, and it turns out to be a BMW, you'll be bit disappointed, even if the BMW is an excellent car, and they tell you after, that it was never meant to be a Ferrari. 

[Reboot]

3 hours ago, ztboiler said:

Nobody should throw stones here at the OP....it is rather true by definition without being disrespectful of a truly great back.  

 

Gore's greatness and expected contribution is positive yardage in a power running game between the tackles.  That is by definition more one dimensional when he is in the game than more multi-threat players would be.  You trade yards per play for ball control defensive minded football.  It's a better recipe for teams with disruptive defenses....but one that still can produce championships when done well.

 

Frank knows who he is...we shouldn't apologize for him.

I agree with this.  I’d call it methodical.  When the TE leads the team in receptions by a wide margin, and first and second downs were dominated by between the tackles runs from a 34 year old, your offense is plodding, methodical, conservative, boring, whatever the term.  What’s most frustrating to me about that approach is, you’re asking the weakest part of your team to do the most - OL and a young QB.  Sustain drives by beating people at the line of scrimmage and convert third downs in obvious passing situations.  Bad coaching and scheme.  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

I don't follow college football, so I didn't know Mack before we drafted him. I based all my expectations on reading this forum. My overall impression was that Mack was drafted to be Gore's successor. A guy who can take Gore's role, and as an extra, he is also flashy, quick and has big play ability.

 

My expectation was the above. And then, I didn't see that player on the field. That was a bit of a disappointment honestly. And still is. You can't do much about it. If you've been promised to get a Ferrari, and it turns out to be a BMW, you'll be bit disappointed, even if the BMW is an excellent car, and they tell you after, that it was never meant to be a Ferrari. 

 

Yeah, message boards tend to get carried away when it comes to newly drafted players. People start seeing these guys as future starters who will fill immediate needs. 

 

Check this out from NFL.com on Mack: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/marlon-mack?id=2558123

 

Quote

 

STRENGTHS

 Looks like he has ball bearings in his hips. Able to swivel in multiple directions. Can tilt and slalom around defenders on the second and third level and is able to string moves together. Has slippery feet and is hard to pin down when bouncing laterally. Runs with knee bend and his pad level is low at contact. Explosive burst carries him into his getaway gear. Able to run away from tacklers. Six of his fifteen touchdowns this year went for 43-plus yards. Always plays fast. Contain buster to the outside. Finds ways to slither out of tackles. Hands showed improvement as pass catcher.

WEAKNESSES

 Runs with inconsistent power through contact. Will need to accelerate through contact on next level. Serial run bouncer. Too willing to make wild bounces to the furthest reaches of the perimeter if interior lanes are gummed up. Lacks a committed approach between the tackles. Feet start dancing if he doesn't see an early point of entry. On jet sweeps, he rarely looked to cut it downhill in space and defaulted to the wide track. Has a very poor fumble rate over this three years and has put the ball on the ground twelve times. Ducks head into traffic to finish rather than keeping eyes scanning.

DRAFT PROJECTION

 Round 3-4

NFL COMPARISON

 Denard Robinson

BOTTOM LINE

 Scat back with decent size and blazing getaway speed. Mack has plenty of wiggle to bounce from run lane to run lane and make tacklers miss, but he has a penchant for looking to break runs way outside when the interior becomes too trafficked and he won't be able to get away with that against NFL speed. Mack is a complementary runner who can hit big runs against defenses who have been worn down, but he needs to be matched with the right scheme in order to unlock his big-play potential.

 

 

I think the bolded is spot on. A big play potential guy who needs to be more disciplined on inside runs, and also had some issues with ball security. Complementary runner. I think that's what I said about him after watching his college clips.

 

I think he's more than a scat back, but he obviously has some improvement to make as an inside runner. 

[Smoke317]

3 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I agree, but Chud has at least been able to utilize Doyle on some quick-hitters from Luck/Brissett.  It also helps that he has Gore running up the middle as opposed to Pep trying to use Trent Richardson...

Pep used our tight ends better than Chud has used just Doyle.  Go check the stats.  And I’m gonna assume that you (like me) think that Doyle is a better overall tight end than both Allen and Fleener.  So Pep actually did more with less... Chud deserves no praise or caveats. He had NFL experience and did no better than a college OC in his first opportunity...  Major disappointment.  I so hope we get a proper offensive mind in here this go.  We can’t keep wasting Luck with inexperienced (Pep) & near incompetent (Chud) OC’s.

 

Give me McDaniels but if Ballard wants Toub, he better come with a better OC than our last couple or we will have ruined a can’t miss prospect like Luck. God forbid...

[horseshoecrabs]

5 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

i was referring to how they both were able to come up with ways for the offense to score and win 11+ games i believe all 3 of the first years of Luck

 

 

You mean a healthy Andrew luck improvising on his on most of the time?

[throwing BBZ]

6 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

I disagree our horrible play caller made us predictable.

 

 I disagree. The pitiful O-line made us predictable.
And well, i disagree with myself.
 The sorry bunch of route runner WR's and having one TE that stretches the field about 10 yards was what made us predictable.
 Frank was a SOLID piece. JMO of course.

[jameszeigler834]

1 minute ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 I disagree. The pitiful O-line made us predictable.
And well, i disagree with myself.
 The sorry bunch of route runner WR's and having one TE that stretches the field about 10 yards was what made us predictable.
 Frank was a SOLID piece. JMO of course.

Ok I agree to an extent on that but the play calling wasn't good either.

[throwing BBZ]

Just now, jameszeigler834 said:

Ok I agree to an extent on that but the play calling wasn't good either.

 

Hey No doubt James. I just thought you had that truth covered just fine. 

[chad72]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Mack more talented than Gore?  I don't think so.

 

I agree.

 

When Mack doesn't lose yards as much as he gains, we can talk about that. When Mack picks up blitzes consistently, we can talk about that. When Mack doesn't fumble inside own 20 or lose yardage going east and west, we can talk about that.

 

Till then, he is NOT more talented than Gore, he can't even get skinny like Gore through the limited creases our O-line provides, and wants to go outside the tackles more than necessary. He has ways to go till he is consistent game in and game out, and while he can help us expand the playbook, my comparison of his to LeSean McCoy in the hope he can be at least a 2 down back will just be a body type comparison at this point.

[George Peterson]

We could use a good checkdown/3rd down/passing back and don't really have one.  Kind of hoping that Rex Burkhead doesn't sign a team friendly deal in New England and hits the market due to the crowded stable in New England.  Burkhead isn't a great player but he's a solid professional who can do a bit of everything and expands the playbook with his presence.

[will426]

I feel like a lot of people forget Mack is a Rookie who got hurt and also played with no threat at Qb and also one the most atrocious lines. Other than Hunt ,Kamara,and maybe Fournette NO rookie running backs looked AMAZING I’d even say CM on the panthers dealt with a garbage line and couldn’t thrive running the ball with more threats on offense than we had and yes he was a good receiver because they Played him and wanted him to be apart of the offense unlike Our Staff

[OLD FAN MAN]

6 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

His YPC are right in line with Vick Ballard...who is a cult hero with Colts fans for his rookie season. And Mack was more productive as a pass catcher. Seems like a different standard...if we are considering Mack to be any type of disappointment.

 

I think the disappointment (frustration seems more apt) could stem from the success that guys like Hunt and Kamara have had compared to Mack. 

 

While it does seem like the Colts got the short end of the stick when it comes to rookie RBs this season, I don't think it's fair to judge Mack until he gets a new OC next season. He at least has huge potential as a change of pace RB. And Chud's inability to use Mack more as a pass catcher was either stupid or stubborn...or both. 

hard to get a rb in the fourth who becomes a first year super star

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

Hey No doubt James. I just thought you had that truth covered just fine. 

Ya.

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

I agree.

 

When Mack doesn't lose yards as much as he gains, we can talk about that. When Mack picks up blitzes consistently, we can talk about that. When Mack doesn't fumble inside own 20 or lose yardage going east and west, we can talk about that.

 

Till then, he is NOT more talented than Gore, he can't even get skinny like Gore through the limited creases our O-line provides, and wants to go outside the tackles more than necessary. He has ways to go till he is consistent game in and game out, and while he can help us expand the playbook, my comparison of his to LeSean McCoy in the hope he can be at least a 2 down back will just be a body type comparison at this point.

He reminds me a little like Duke Johnson for the browns a scat back.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, will426 said:

I feel like a lot of people forget Mack is a Rookie who got hurt and also played with no threat at Qb and also one the most atrocious lines. Other than Hunt ,Kamara,and maybe Fournette NO rookie running backs looked AMAZING I’d even say CM on the panthers dealt with a garbage line and couldn’t thrive running the ball with more threats on offense than we had and yes he was a good receiver because they Played him and wanted him to be apart of the offense unlike Our Staff

The staff has nothing to do with injuries and having 20 different starting offensive lines over the last couple of years. With no consistent offensive line play no staff in the league can to a good job.

[will426]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The staff has nothing to do with injuries and having 20 different starting offensive lines over the last couple of years. With no consistent offensive line play no staff in the league can to a good job.

Um even with the injuries we don’t play to our strengths and thats on the Staff they don’t know how to utilize players it’s been that way for a while we lack creativity period 

[crazycolt1]

18 minutes ago, will426 said:

Um even with the injuries we don’t play to our strengths and thats on the Staff they don’t know how to utilize players it’s been that way for a while we lack creativity period 

Do you know what talent level is? Do you know that even with talent level there has to be consistency in players?

This blaming everything that went wrong with the Colts all on the coaching staff is very narrow minded of you.

Do you know games are won in the trenches?  Or have you ever heard of that?