Rick Venturi's in depth assessment of Game 1.

[Lawrence Owen]

 

This is a 45 minute analysis. 

1/2 of it is about the Bengals game. 

The other 1/2 is his breakdown of the upcoming Skins game.

There is an in depth assessment of just about everything about the Bengals game.  He explains a LOT of what we have questions about what happened.  Such as ,: 'Why no Ridgeway?' "Is our defense good or not?"

He is however just as baffled about why Desire did not play over a broken handed Wilson.

A lot of good info here.  I personally put Rick's opinion's pretty high.

[jvan1973]

He is a smart guy.   He knows football.   He can break down tape.  However,  he has never been successful as a head coach at any level.   He is a football nerd.   He can break down tape,   but he isn't involved in practice.   He doesn't know what is going on in meetings and practice.   

[SteelDragon]

17 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He is a smart guy.   He knows football.   He can break down tape.  However,  he has never been successful as a head coach at any level.   He is a football nerd.   He can break down tape,   but he isn't involved in practice.   He doesn't know what is going on in meetings and practice.   

If he knows football, why keep bringing up his W-L record? He's not applying for a HC job, he's an analyst

[Jackie Daytona]

9 minutes ago, SteelDragon said:

If he knows football, why keep bringing up his W-L record? He's not applying for a HC job, he's an analyst

That sentiment comes from some few posters here having said things to the effect of Venturi obviously knows more than the Colt's current management, so Rick should be running the team.....   which is ridiculous, because Rick ran everything he ever lead into the ground.  That said, he is a great listen and has a knack for explaining football scenarios and behind the scenes things in laymans terms.

[GusFring]

45mins is way too long of a breakdown. 

[Four2itus]

Some of us were around when he was running the show. 

 

He knows far more about football than most. But not as much as the folks at 56th St. 

[krunk]

I think they ought to sit Quincy till his hand heals. Play Desir.

[Lawrence Owen]

5 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Some of us were around when he was running the show. 

 

He knows far more about football than most. But not as much as the folks at 56th St. 

Well, I didn't post his break-down for the people on west 56th...lol

 

4 hours ago, krunk said:

I think they ought to sit Quincy till his hand heals. Play Desir.

I think that's the general consensus.  Maybe Desir had a head cold.  Or was called to fill in the ranks of the Avengers?....

[Lawrence Owen]

5 hours ago, GusFring said:

45mins is way too long of a breakdown. 

it was 20 minutes of Cincy, 20 min of Redskins.  And for a lot of people, (myself included) we spend a lot more than 20 minutes reading or watching videos on games or doing research per week.

[superrep1967]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Well, I didn't post his break-down for the people on west 56th...lol

 

I think that's the general consensus.  Maybe Desir had a head cold.  Or was called to fill in the ranks of the Avengers?....

He was assigned to the Madden game only. 

[Pacergeek]

After listening to Rick, he has me terrified of Washington. Those RB's are going to kill us. I could be wrong, but it seems like Alex Smith always plays well against us. 

 

Rick also tore up both Geathers and Hooker. Ironic that the supposed strength of our defense, the Safeties, might actually be the weak link

[aaron11]

9 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

That sentiment comes from some few posters here having said things to the effect of Venturi obviously knows more than the Colt's current management, so Rick should be running the team.....   which is ridiculous, because Rick ran everything he ever lead into the ground.  That said, he is a great listen and has a knack for explaining football scenarios and behind the scenes things in laymans terms.

he was an interim coach on a bad team here, i doubt many guys would have won with the 91 colts 

[NewEra]

14 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

After listening to Rick, he has me terrified of Washington. Those RB's are going to kill us. I could be wrong, but it seems like Alex Smith always plays well against us. 

 

Rick also tore up both Geathers and Hooker. Ironic that the supposed strength of our defense, the Safeties, might actually be the weak link

Unfortunately Geathers and hikers both suffer from a lack of playing time. They're just now starting to get the rust knocked off. Hardly no preseason and haven't played in awhile. I think they'll settle in and get much better

[Pacergeek]

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Unfortunately Geathers and hikers both suffer from a lack of playing time. They're just now starting to get the rust knocked off. Hardly no preseason and haven't played in awhile. I think they'll settle in and get much better

I sure hope so. Geathers looks like he excels at hitting people, but I'm not sold that he can cover. Hooker is obviously highly athletic, but we cannot afford for him to make novice mistakes

[DaColts85]

3 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

I sure hope so. Geathers looks like he excels at hitting people, but I'm not sold that he can cover. Hooker is obviously highly athletic, but we cannot afford for him to make novice mistakes

Well prepare to be upset. Hooker is going to have some novice mistakes. He did not get a full year last year and now he is learning a new scheme and getting his agility back at the same time. He will look better each week imo but needs another game or two to get his feet under him. Geathers for the most part is the same thing. He has never been great in coverage but there was always the hope he would get better but he has had injury issues.

[DougDew]

34 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

After listening to Rick, he has me terrified of Washington. Those RB's are going to kill us. I could be wrong, but it seems like Alex Smith always plays well against us. 

 

Rick also tore up both Geathers and Hooker. Ironic that the supposed strength of our defense, the Safeties, might actually be the weak link

Who said they were a strength, besides folks on this board?.  Geathers wasn't a pro-bowl safety before the neck injury, was always thought to be suspect in coverage, and Hooker is coming off surgery.  Not to mention, limited football experience led to taking bad angles and only average tackling skills in college, so I never understood the hype to begin with.

 

Safety was a need this past offseason.  I hope the play improves to where it isn't next offseason.  

[Pacergeek]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Who said they were a strength, besides folks on this board?.  Geathers wasn't a pro-bowl safety before the neck injury, was always thought to be suspect in coverage, and Hooker is coming off surgery.  Not to mention, limited football experience led to taking bad angles and only average tackling skills in college, so I never understood the hype to begin with.

 

Safety was a need this past offseason.  I hope the play improves to where it isn't next offseason.  

Geathers is interesting. Typically when players are out a while with injury, expectations start to lower. The opposite has occurred with Geathers, where the inactivity has helped hype him up somehow. People keep saying how good Geathers is, but I have rarely seen him play. I like Safeties that can hit, so I'm going to continue being a fan of his, but the hype train is very strange.

 

 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

Geathers is interesting. Typically when players are out a while with injury, expectations start to lower. The opposite has occurred with Geathers, where the inactivity has helped hype him up somehow. People keep saying how good Geathers is, but I have rarely seen him play. I like Safeties that can hit, so I'm going to continue being a fan of his, but the hype train is very strange.

 

 

Its because football fans tend to overhype tough, strong, physical type guys, including athletic types like Hooker.  They don't have as much affection for the technique guys.  It comes with the territory.

[aaron11]

 

39 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Who said they were a strength, besides folks on this board?.  Geathers wasn't a pro-bowl safety before the neck injury, was always thought to be suspect in coverage, and Hooker is coming off surgery.  Not to mention, limited football experience led to taking bad angles and only average tackling skills in college, so I never understood the hype to begin with.

 

Safety was a need this past offseason.  I hope the play improves to where it isn't next offseason.  

 

geathers was having a good year his second season until he got hurt.  he only played 9 games but was starting to look like a player at strong safety 

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2017/02/18/clayton-geathers-made-significant-second-year-leap/

 

as for hooker, he had 3 interceptions in just 6 starts last year. thats noteworthy especially when you look at what he did in just one year in college.  he still has a lot to work on too

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 

 

geathers was having a good year his second season until he got hurt.  he only played 9 games but was starting to look like a player at strong safety 

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2017/02/18/clayton-geathers-made-significant-second-year-leap/

 

as for hooker, he had 3 interceptions in just 6 starts last year. thats noteworthy especially when you look at what he did in just one year in college.  he still has a lot to work on too

Not good enough to not say the positions weren't needs.  Now, you can fill that need with players you have to see if they can develop into reliable players, but that doesn't mean the position is adequately filled at the present time.

 

We took the same approach with G for years, and still with RT.  They were needs, and we let them be filled with young guys on the roster to see if they could fill it.  We gave up on G and filled it with 3 new players this offseason.  We will probably do they same with RT if Good, Haeg, Webb, Clark or Holden (if we sign him) don't show clear signs of stepping up.

 

But this past offseason, S was a need.  Based upon the first game, it still is.  We'll see if the need diminishes as the season moves along.

 

Despite drafting Wilson, cornerback is still a need too.  We'll see how that goes.  Hopefully, neither position will be a need by March, or else we'll be in another wait and see situation.

[aaron11]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not good enough to not say the positions weren't needs.

i dont agree with that,  they are just young and coming off of injuries. 

 

if we started over then we would have another young safety that has to learn to play.  farley was decent sunday and probably should have played more.  he was pffs 6th rated safety 

 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that,  they are just young and coming off of injuries. 

 

if we started over then we would have another young safety that has to learn to play.  farley was decent sunday and probably should have played more.  he was pffs 6th rated safety 

 

For as long as he has been here, Farley has been just as good as Geathers and Hooker have ever been.  (which says more about them than it does Farley).  Farley doesn't make the big play or the bone crunching hit highlight, but has been more reliable on the other 90% of things a S does.

 

On paper, Geathers and Hooker have the ability to exceed Farley, so you give them playing time.  I get that.  But at some point, they need to show clear separation from Farley or else all of the hype becomes invalid.

[Four2itus]

5 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Well, I didn't post his break-down for the people on west 56th...lol

I was talking about the love for Venturi....not your breakdown. 

[Fisticuffs111]

Venturi's speaking the truth about the Redskins D. This is a really tough matchup for our offense, especially up front, but they also have playmakers in the backfield too. AC's first game back and that RT spot still looking iffy, it's gonna be tough. 

I agree with him about Braden at RT. He looked okay there in the preseason but that was mostly against 2nd/3rd stringers. He looked pretty bad there against the Bengals.

[deadman]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Who said they were a strength, besides folks on this board?. 

 

 

The Colts marketed them as such. Videos and articles hyping the duo. They put the expectation on themselves. 

 

I still think they are good and will hold my judgment for a while. 

[krunk]

16 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Venturi's speaking the truth about the Redskins D. This is a really tough matchup for our offense, especially up front, but they also have playmakers in the backfield too. AC's first game back and that RT spot still looking iffy, it's gonna be tough. 

I agree with him about Braden at RT. He looked okay there in the preseason but that was mostly against 2nd/3rd stringers. He looked pretty bad there against the Bengals.

Braden for right now needs to be at the Guard position backing up Slauson.

[chad72]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Its because football fans tend to overhype tough, strong, physical type guys, including athletic types like Hooker.  They don't have as much affection for the technique guys.  It comes with the territory.

 

One thing I would agree is in the style of D we play, there is no way A.J. Green should have gotten behind Hooker for that TD. Bethea would at least be contending it, like he did with Randy Moss in our 2007 game though Randy Moss said "get out of here" and snatched the ball away (around 2:40 in this clip below).  

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000313243/2007-WK-9-Patriots-vs-Colts

 

That was a heck of a game, btw. Randy Moss was a beast. 

[krunk]

17 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Venturi's speaking the truth about the Redskins D. This is a really tough matchup for our offense, especially up front, but they also have playmakers in the backfield too. AC's first game back and that RT spot still looking iffy, it's gonna be tough. 

I agree with him about Braden at RT. He looked okay there in the preseason but that was mostly against 2nd/3rd stringers. He looked pretty bad there against the Bengals.

We shall see.  Arizona doesn't have much of an offense with Bradford back there.

That made them look even better than what they may really be.

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

We shall see.  Arizona doesn't have much of an offense with Bradford back there.

That made them look even better than what they may really be.

 

I still think we should make Haeg LT where he deals with speed more than power and bull rushes, that he would do more at RT. Castanzo has the better strength to deal with those at RT.

 

It sounds radical but it is early in the season, and I felt Haeg at LT did better than Haeg at RT.

[Fisticuffs111]

20 minutes ago, krunk said:

Braden for right now needs to be at the Guard position backing up Slauson.

Yeah, agreed.
 

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

We shall see.  Arizona doesn't have much of an offense with Bradford back there.

That made them look even better than what they may really be.

Redskins defense was really good last year too though. And it's mostly the same, with guys like Allen getting more seasoned and adding Payne. They're gonna be tough.

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Yeah, agreed.
 

Redskins defense was really good last year too though. And it's mostly the same, with guys like Allen getting more seasoned and adding Payne. They're gonna be tough.

The redskins didn't have a really good defense last year

[krunk]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The redskins didn't have a really good defense last year

Run D was terrible. Signature of a Manusky Defense.

Did do some things to improve it this year.  The only issue

is we are still sorting out our run game.

[Fisticuffs111]

11 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The redskins didn't have a really good defense last year

 

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

Run D was terrible. Signature of a Manusky Defense.

Top ten in sack and INT's. 11th in defensive DVOA. "Really good" is debatable I guess, but they did have a good defense last year.

[krunk]

3 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

Top ten in sack and INT's. 11th in defensive DVOA. Is that not good?

It's sort of the similar type of scenario that we had when Manusky was here when we

had 41 sacks.  The bulk of it was due to the blitz.  They have some better pieces than we had in some areas.  I just believe they can't show Luck much he hasn't seen from all the many years he spent battling Manusky in practice.  Plus our offense is not structured the way it used to be.  We are getting rid of the ball fast.   I think we'll be okay.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

One thing I would agree is in the style of D we play, there is no way A.J. Green should have gotten behind Hooker for that TD. Bethea would at least be contending it, like he did with Randy Moss in our 2007 game though Randy Moss said "get out of here" and snatched the ball away (around 2:40 in this clip below).  

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000313243/2007-WK-9-Patriots-vs-Colts

 

That was a heck of a game, btw. Randy Moss was a beast. 

It is my understanding that the Tampa 2 safety play is different than what had under Manusky.  In T2, there is less over-the-top and in-the-box saefties, but rather each takes a side of the field, at least when in cover2 (and I don't know how much we play that).  But having the hard hitting SS like Geathers and the ball hawking center fielder like Hooker is not exactly what a T2 calls for.  Yes, Bob Sanders played the run more than Bethea, but athletically, body type, and skill set, they were generally not as far apart as is Geathers and Hooker, IMO.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

15 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

He is a smart guy.   He knows football.   He can break down tape.  However,  he has never been successful as a head coach at any level.   He is a football nerd.   He can break down tape,   but he isn't involved in practice.   He doesn't know what is going on in meetings and practice.   

 

14 hours ago, GusFring said:

45mins is way too long of a breakdown. 

 

After listening to this on Tuesday, I gotta say, I don't know how many more of those I'm gonna be able to sit through, it's like listening to paint dry. That's not to say I didn't get some decent insight from his breakdown, but I think I just prefer Kevin Bowen & Matt Danely.

[BOTT]

6 hours ago, aaron11 said:

he was an interim coach on a bad team here, i doubt many guys would have won with the 91 colts 

I like Venturi, but his entire coaching career was lackluster.  Although being lackluster at the top level of your profession is something to be proud of I reckon.

[chad72]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

It is my understanding that the Tampa 2 safety play is different than what had under Manusky.  In T2, there is less over-the-top and in-the-box saefties, but rather each takes a side of the field, at least when in cover2 (and I don't know how much we play that).  But having the hard hitting SS like Geathers and the ball hawking center fielder like Hooker is not exactly what a T2 calls for.  Yes, Bob Sanders played the run more than Bethea, but athletically, body type, and skill set, they were generally not as far apart as is Geathers and Hooker, IMO.

 

I was referring to the scheme played under Dungy, not the scheme we played with Manusky (Bethea was there for 1 year only with Manusky). Hooker should play center fielder like Bethea did in the Dungy days (due to which I brought up 2007 and Bethea), at least that is my expectation. 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I was referring to the scheme played under Dungy, not the scheme we played with Manusky (Bethea was there for 1 year only with Manusky). Hooker should play center fielder like Bethea did in the Dungy days (due to which I brought up 2007 and Bethea), at least that is my expectation. 

I understood.  I didn't realize that Bethea played the centerfielder role under Dungy in the same way that Hooker played it in the 34.  With Dungy, I think Bethea was the S that tended to have had the deeper responsibilities, but Sanders was usually close by.

 

I view Geathers as more of a closer to the box guy in the 34, strictly underneath, with Hooker being the sole deep guy.  Separate roles for which they were both drafted, but neither are really called for under the Tampa 2.  

 

I assume Hooker can develop into the Bethea role and can be more consistent with fewer splash plays, I hope. 

 

I think Geathers is a poor fit, was useful as an underneath coverage option when thumpers like Morrison were on the field, but the addition of rangy LBs this year has made his skill set less useful, IMO.

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I understood.  I didn't realize that Bethea played the centerfielder role under Dungy in the same way that Hooker played it in the 34.  With Dungy, I think Bethea was the S that tended to have had the deeper responsibilities, but Sanders was usually close by.

 

I view Geathers as more of a closer to the box guy in the 34, strictly underneath, with Hooker being the sole deep guy.  Separate roles for which they were both drafted, but neither are really called for under the Tampa 2.  

 

I assume Hooker can develop into the Bethea role and can be more consistent with fewer splash plays, I hope. 

 

I think Geathers is a poor fit, was useful as an underneath coverage option when thumpers like Morrison were on the field, but the addition of rangy LBs this year has made his skill set less useful, IMO.

 

I agree with you on this front. Rangy LBs like Telvin Smith of the Jags and the hybrid LB role that Deone Bucannon of the Cardinals plays, has made positions like those of Geathers out of style, IMO.