John Simon Interview

[TKnight24]

 

[Smonroe]

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

Why not?  We didn't have much power anyway.

[krunk]

12 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

Why do you call it finesse?  It'll be similar to what Jacksonville is doing and they aren't finesse.. I think Ballard will build it similar to the old bears teams under Lovie Smith personnell wise and we know he values tough players.  I'm not too worried about it.  You just have to get the right players for the kind of identity we want who fit the scheme.

[Douzer]

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

Finesse Defense? I don't remember any other 4-3 team getting that label hung on them but the Colts. I always thought of that as a backhanded insult Colt haters in the media perpetuated. As I recall, back in the day, guys like Bob Sanders, Antoine Bethea and others had no finesse in their games, they just laid the wood.

[horseshoecrabs]

8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

Not if our offense can play ball control with building our offense to help Andrew stay heathy. Hey we already tried plan A with Andrew carrying a offense that was sub par. and you see where that got us. The best way to help our current defense is with an offense that will keep them off the field and not wear them down 

[indyagent17]

17 minutes ago, krunk said:

Why do you call it finesse?  It'll be similar to what Jacksonville is doing and they aren't finesse.. I think Ballard will build it similar to the old bears teams under Lovie Smith personnell wise and we know he values tough players.  I'm not too worried about it.  You just have to get the right players for the kind of identity we want who fit the scheme.

Lets see if Woods, Anderson, Geathers et al think we have a finesse defense?

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, indyagent17 said:

Lets see if Woods, Anderson, Geathers et al think we have a finesse defense?

 

(To all who quoted me) Maybe ‘finesse’ isn’t the right word.  I’m talking about the new scheme with a lighter, faster Dline designed to pressure the QB.  You think Woods fits that scheme if Hankins didn’t?

 

The teams in in our division all have big power backs.  Plus, all the QBs are mobile.  

 

We had a strong D line against the run last year, I think it was suited for division play.  I’m skeptical about the new scheme but I hope I’m proven wrong.  Please feel free to season my crow is I’m totally off base after a few games. 

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

(To all who quoted me) Maybe ‘finesse’ isn’t the right word.  I’m talking about the new scheme with a lighter, faster Dline designed to pressure the QB.  You think Woods fits that scheme if Hankins didn’t?

 

The teams in in our division all have big power backs.  Plus, all the QBs are mobile.  

 

We had a strong D line against the run last year, I think it was suited for division play.  I’m skeptical about the new scheme but I hope I’m proven wrong.  Please feel free to season my crow is I’m totally off base after a few games. 

 

A reminder about that strong D-line against the tun last year....

 

I believe we were 31st against the run last year.   That's next to last.   Perhaps we weren't quite as good against the run as it might seem?

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

(To all who quoted me) Maybe ‘finesse’ isn’t the right word.  I’m talking about the new scheme with a lighter, faster Dline designed to pressure the QB.  You think Woods fits that scheme if Hankins didn’t?

 

The teams in in our division all have big power backs.  Plus, all the QBs are mobile.  

 

We had a strong D line against the run last year, I think it was suited for division play.  I’m skeptical about the new scheme but I hope I’m proven wrong.  Please feel free to season my crow is I’m totally off base after a few games. 

 

Bigger/heavier didn't exactly translate to more success over the last six years. Also, it seems like you're assuming the Colts want to use 275 pound interior linemen who can't play the run, which is probably a mistaken conclusion. 

 

As for Woods/Hankins, they would both be 1 techs in the new defense, probably limited to 20 snaps a game, at best. For Woods, that's about $8k/snap, based on his contract. For Hankins, that would have been over $26k/snap. They've made the big nose tackle a spot player, and they released Hankins because his contract didn't line up with his anticipated production. Why keep Hankins at a premium price when he's not a premium player?

 

And the QBs being mobile is a good reason to have speed -- something the defense was desperately lacking -- not size. 

 

More important to than any of that is good players. Doesn't matter what the scheme is if you're lacking in talent and execution.

[Smonroe]

40 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

A reminder about that strong D-line against the tun last year....

 

I believe we were 31st against the run last year.   That's next to last.   Perhaps we weren't quite as good against the run as it might seem?

 

 

Thats a deceptive stat.  There were several long garbage runs when the box was stacked at the end of a couple games.  Henry’s comes to mind, and there were a few more.  Can’t blame those on the Dline.  

 

I think Matt Dantley at StampedeBlue posted an article a while back about it.  But forget the stats, just look at the games. The run D was actually pretty good.

 

[Albaby]

I for one can’t wait to see a fast defense.  Especially when they go after the QB a lot.  That’s when it’s fun watching a defense (in my world).  Go ahead and call me a homer, but I’m actually excited for an overhaul of our defense.  I think that we couldn’t have hired a better Defensive coordinator (under the current conditions).  I seriously like the direction that this team is going in.

[Creekside]

58 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

A reminder about that strong D-line against the tun last year....

 

I believe we were 31st against the run last year.   That's next to last.   Perhaps we weren't quite as good against the run as it might seem?

 

 

In 2016 the Colt's run defense gave up 4.7 yds per carry.......3rd worst in the league.

 

In 2017 the Colt's run defense gave up 3.9 yds per carry.......8th best in the league.

 

[Smonroe]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Bigger/heavier didn't exactly translate to more success over the last six years. Also, it seems like you're assuming the Colts want to use 275 pound interior linemen who can't play the run, which is probably a mistaken conclusion. 

 

As for Woods/Hankins, they would both be 1 techs in the new defense, probably limited to 20 snaps a game, at best. For Woods, that's about $8k/snap, based on his contract. For Hankins, that would have been over $26k/snap. They've made the big nose tackle a spot player, and they released Hankins because his contract didn't line up with his anticipated production. Why keep Hankins at a premium price when he's not a premium player?

 

And the QBs being mobile is a good reason to have speed -- something the defense was desperately lacking -- not size. 

 

More important to than any of that is good players. Doesn't matter what the scheme is if you're lacking in talent and execution.

 

Agree with your last sentence, obviously.  I don’t care what guys are making per snap, I care how they play per snap.  And Hankins easily plays a 3.   I get that they released him mainly because of what you said, financial fit.  But, again as you said, we need good players.  No one can say he wasn’t good.  

 

Obviously we want fast players who are good against the run, everyone does.  I’m concerned we’re going back to what we had in that sub 300lbs DTs time where teams ran all over us.  

 

Like I said, I hope I’m wrong.  

[Alex22]

5 hours ago, TKnight24 said:

 

 

He kinda looks like Bjorne 

[NewColtsFan]

58 minutes ago, egg said:

 

In 2016 the Colt's run defense gave up 4.7 yds per carry.......3rd worst in the league.

 

In 2017 the Colt's run defense gave up 3.9 yds per carry.......8th best in the league.

 

 

Good post...

 

I appreciate good facts that make an effective argument.    And yours does...

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

Agree with your last sentence, obviously.  I don’t care what guys are making per snap, I care how they play per snap.  And Hankins easily plays a 3.   I get that they released him mainly because of what you said, financial fit.  But, again as you said, we need good players.  No one can say he wasn’t good.  

 

Obviously we want fast players who are good against the run, everyone does.  I’m concerned we’re going back to what we had in that sub 300lbs DTs time where teams ran all over us.  

 

Like I said, I hope I’m wrong.  

 

But why keep him at a premium price? Woods was a good player last year, arguably as good as Hankins against the run, and maybe better as a penetrator. He costs 30% of what Hankins would have cost. 

 

As for your concern, I don't think it's justified. For one, there are still several 300+ pound DTs on the roster.

 

Second, the defense hasn't been good against the run even when they had one of the biggest DL units in the league. 

 

Most importantly, even when they made improvement against the run on a per carry basis last year, the defense was still bad. That's primarily because they couldn't rush the passer, couldn't cover the middle, and gave up more big plays than any other team in the NFL. The scheme change and adjustment in targeted personnel is designed to make the defense faster. And there's no reason to assume that changing the scheme means they won't be able to defend the run. 

 

There are a several good defenses that run the defense the Colts want to run. They're fast, they put pressure on the QB, they tackle well, don't give up big plays, and get big stops when the game is on the line. There's nothing inherently wrong or deficient with the defense they want to run. 

[zibby43]

9 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

 

I don't think he meant a "power conference" in that it is stacked with teams that play "power schemes."

 

I think he just meant it's a strong conference now; all the teams are talented.  The AFC South used to be one of the worst conferences in the league, a reality which was alluded to immediately before the "power conference" comment.

 

 

[coltsfeva]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Bigger/heavier didn't exactly translate to more success over the last six years. Also, it seems like you're assuming the Colts want to use 275 pound interior linemen who can't play the run, which is probably a mistaken conclusion. 

 

As for Woods/Hankins, they would both be 1 techs in the new defense, probably limited to 20 snaps a game, at best. For Woods, that's about $8k/snap, based on his contract. For Hankins, that would have been over $26k/snap. They've made the big nose tackle a spot player, and they released Hankins because his contract didn't line up with his anticipated production. Why keep Hankins at a premium price when he's not a premium player?

 

And the QBs being mobile is a good reason to have speed -- something the defense was desperately lacking -- not size. 

 

More important to than any of that is good players. Doesn't matter what the scheme is if you're lacking in talent and execution.

Exactly.  I’m optimistic the defense will be better for a few reasons:

 

2nd year players returning (Geathers, Hooker,Stewart, Wilson, Hairston,etc) will have had some experience, which in turn, will help them to react instead of think.

 

The draft - we don’t know who they end up with, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think they’ll end up with a defensive playmaker or two.

 

Better tackling/ execution . This is obviously an assumption, but I’ve got to think it will be an emphasis by the new coaches.

 

An improved offensive scheme that will eat up chunks of time and allow the defense to rest.

[dgambill]

17 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Said all the right things, I hope he stays healthy.

 

”It’s a power conference...”  And we’re transitioning to a finesse defense?  

 

Does this concern anyone else?  

I know you didn't mean it to be such.....but I hope someone in the media echos your words so the Colts defense can cut that out and put that on the bulletin board. That's some derogatory stuff right there when you talk about a defense. I've heard of the Colts offense being called finesse but never the defense. We aren't exactly playing a pure tampa 2 defense but I never saw the Bucs in the early 2000's called finesse....never saw the Bears in the mid 2000s called finesse...and never heard of Seattle in the 2010's (even though their defense is slightly different it is still 4-3 base) being called that. It's about attitude, speed, and making tackles. We get those athletic fly to the ball guys I think the rest will take care of itself. You can have some undersized LBs and still be ok. To me being able to be fast enough to get in position and square up and make a hit is more important than slower big guys flying out of control trying to make a play and getting juked out. Getting those physical corners (maybe taller and slower and can't press but sure tacklers) and safeties that come up and tackle....get your different fronts for sub-packages to rush and those for run downs and I'm not too worried. I hope someone fires up our guys calling them finesse. I think they will answer that call!

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

I know you didn't mean it to be such.....but I hope someone in the media echos your words so the Colts defense can cut that out and put that on the bulletin board. That's some derogatory stuff right there when you talk about a defense. I've heard of the Colts offense being called finesse but never the defense. We aren't exactly playing a pure tampa 2 defense but I never saw the Bucs in the early 2000's called finesse....never saw the Bears in the mid 2000s called finesse...and never heard of Seattle in the 2010's (even though their defense is slightly different it is still 4-3 base) being called that. It's about attitude, speed, and making tackles. We get those athletic fly to the ball guys I think the rest will take care of itself. You can have some undersized LBs and still be ok. To me being able to be fast enough to get in position and square up and make a hit is more important than slower big guys flying out of control trying to make a play and getting juked out. Getting those physical corners (maybe taller and slower and can't press but sure tacklers) and safeties that come up and tackle....get your different fronts for sub-packages to rush and those for run downs and I'm not too worried. I hope someone fires up our guys calling them finesse. I think they will answer that call!

 

Yeah, finesse was a bad word choice, but if it fires anyone up on the D, I’m glad I used it.  

 

Seriously though, as everyone who’s ever played knows, that bulletin board stuff is good for about two plays.  Then you better be focused on winning your assignment.  

[dgambill]

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Yeah, finesse was a bad word choice, but if it fires anyone up on the D, I’m glad I used it.  

 

Seriously though, as everyone who’s ever played knows, that bulletin board stuff is good for about two plays.  Then you better be focused on winning your assignment.  

Yep....to me its good for the offseason....to put in that extra effort in practice...in the gym...lifting...to get bigger, better, stronger etc....on the field it is definitely about execution! Like you and Supes said...knowing your assignment and executing on the field. I hope this defense allows us to play faster and be in position to make the right play. Game day I can't imagine anyone doesn't play 100%...so locker board stuff is nothing...but if it helps you focus the week leading up or during the offseason....I'll use it!

[TheRustonRifle#7]

I know that Chuck basked glow on all his players, well most and sometimes it was undeserving hyperbole, but he called Simon a "Football Player"....I agree and this interview certainly backs this up.

[Hoose]

The best explanation of why the Colts needed to change: they just could NOT cover the middle and they could NOT rush the passer. A lethal combination. I expect the new 4-3 D to help cure those two problems in time. You still have to have the athletes to make it work. The Colts have a few. They need a lot more. This draft will be the start of the remake. 

[Zoltan]

So from the press conference Simon is gonna play at Right DE