Day one OTAs

[stitches]

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

[CR91]

 

[CR91]

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Campbell is looking like a pro.

 

 

[richard pallo]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

Could it be you're kind of skeptical we might not have the RB's that will give him the top 5 running game he wants?   I believe Frank is old school.  He means it when he says it.  He wants a top 5 running game.  

[Fisticuffs111]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

Yeah, that old school mentality. I guess it did help win a couple of key games for us. Frank and the OL, I think Nelson particularly, have talked about how a run game can really take the life out of the defense after a while. 

 

Having said that, I remember a lot of times where Frank tried to force the run game early in the drive and it really stalled our offense at times.

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Could it be you're kind of skeptical we might not have the RB's that will give him the top 5 running game he wants?   I believe Frank is old school.  He means it when he says it.  He wants a top 5 running game.  

No Stitches  just doesn't believe you have to run the ball a lot to have a successful play action game. That's the way he sees things.  Me personally I love a good ground game and I don't believe you have to go Rex Ryan to have one.

[WoolMagnet]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Good for her!!! Can't blame her for going home, and escaping the gloomy/rainy weather here. She will enjoy the better weather there.

Better weather, but lesser football.

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Shepman said:

Is this referencing his route running or was he doing a little Wildcat and/or trick plays?

 

Nah, it was him throwing the football into a tire (not through though, I think).

 

click on the pic.twitter.com/BQ2x9z5zlR part below:

 

1 hour ago, Shepman said:

Is this referencing his route running or was he doing a little Wildcat and/or trick plays?

 

Nah, it was him throwing the football into a tire (not through though, I think).

 

click on the pic.twitter.com/BQ2x9z5zlR part below:

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Shepman said:

Is this referencing his route running or was he doing a little Wildcat and/or trick plays?

 

Nah, it was him throwing the football into a tire (not through though, I think).

 

click on the pic.twitter.com/BQ2x9z5zlR part below (or cut 'n paste link into your browser):

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Could it be you're kind of skeptical we might not have the RB's that will give him the top 5 running game he wants?   I believe Frank is old school.  He means it when he says it.  He wants a top 5 running game.  

No, I actually think we have a RB stable that is deep, diverse and good enough for this team's success. The biggest thing that bugs me is that he parrots disproved narratives and I worry that he will be focusing on the wrong things. I don't mind if we are top 5 running team in the league. It certainly beats being bottom 10 running team.

[shasta519]

40 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

 

How so? 

 

I remember a quote about wanting to be a top run team...but is he sounding like they are going to be forcing the issue this season with run?

[EastStreet]

21 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Could it be you're kind of skeptical we might not have the RB's that will give him the top 5 running game he wants?   I believe Frank is old school.  He means it when he says it.  He wants a top 5 running game.  

If you normalize for when Mack was out early last year, we would have been pretty close to top 5. Given the OL improved quickly last year and gelled, and the RBs appear to all be healthy (as far as I know), I don't think it will be to much of a task to be top 5 if we really commit... 

 

Not really sure we'll commit to the point we'll be stubborn though. I am also one of the guys who believes you take what the D gives you, and you don't have to be a top 5 rushing team to run a successful O. Top 10-15, absolutely, but not necessarily top 5.

 

Reich also said the same thing when he was with the Chargers. Their running game was pretty meh. The year after they fired him, it was top 5 lol...

[stitches]

14 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

How so? 

 

I remember a quote about wanting to be a top run team...but is he sounding like they are going to be forcing the issue this season with run?

I don't know if they will be forcing it, but it certainly sounds like improving the run game is one of the main focuses according to Reich's stated objectives. He keeps repeating it in pretty much every public appearance he's made this off-season. He also keeps repeating that the improved run game will help the play action game and the passing game in general. Every single piece of statistical analysis I've seen says there is zero evidence to support that old-time narrative. Better run game does NOT improve the play-action and passing success.  It goes the other way around - better passing game improves the run game. 

 

The thing that keeps me optimistic is that I have not noticed this belief of Reich's negatively impact his playcalling... he seems very solid overall in this regard. He seems to have either pretty good help with game-to-game analytics, or his instincts are superb... or Luck is helping out a lot with on-field adjustments... or some combination of all of those. I guess... I will say  - until I see it negatively impact the playcalling, it will be just a nervous annoyance with his public statements. 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, CR91 said:

Former colts reporter Caroline Cann now works for the panthers

 

 

 

I think she will be bringing her A game on 12/22.

[Smonroe]

4 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

How so? 

 

I remember a quote about wanting to be a top run team...but is he sounding like they are going to be forcing the issue this season with run?

 

I remember people being up in arms when Pagano made a similar statement.  People were saying we'd be wasting a generational QB if we became a running team.  Obviously, that never happened.

 

The difference now is that we have the Oline to be a better running team, which opens up the pass even more.

 

I won't say it's Frank's coach speak, but every team in the NFL wants to run the ball and play good defense.

[CR91]

 

[Scott Pennock]

48 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

Remember Thurman Thomas and Kenneth Davis of the Bills. By having a top running game it opens up the passing lanes as well as the deep ball with play action. It can actually close down games with the 4 or 6 minute offense.

 

If we ran the ball as effectively the first 5 games as we did the last 11 we would have had a top running game.

 

I'm not sure we'll see anything that drastically different than last year actually in the running game except consistency from game 1...

[Unitas2Berry]

3 hours ago, BigQungus said:

 

Yes I'm sad, but at the same time, Caroline Cann is the perfect name for a reporter of the Carolina Panthers who has Cam Newton for a QB 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll miss her on Colt's site, also But she did come home to Carolina, She is from Spartanburg and I believe is alum of South Carolina.

 

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

If you normalize for when Mack was out early last year, we would have been pretty close to top 5. Given the OL improved quickly last year and gelled, and the RBs appear to all be healthy (as far as I know), I don't think it will be to much of a task to be top 5 if we really commit... 

 

Not really sure we'll commit to the point we'll be stubborn though. I am also one of the guys who believes you take what the D gives you, and you don't have to be a top 5 rushing team to run a successful O. Top 10-15, absolutely, but not necessarily top 5.

 

Reich also said the same thing when he was with the Chargers. Their running game was pretty meh. The year after they fired him, it was top 5 lol...

It's because coaches don't get the correlation right, because of decades and decades of the wrong thing being forced into their heads. The teams that face the least stacked boxes are the teams that have the best passing games. Old time coaches think it's the other way around. They think they need to work on the run game specifically in order to improve the run game(and this will lead to improved passing game) when in reality - you have to make the opponent fear your passing game so they will not stack the box and you will have more favorable run situations.

 

 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Remember Thurman Thomas and Kenneth Davis of the Bills. By having a top running game it opens up the passing lanes as well as the deep ball with play action. It can actually close down games with the 4 or 6 minute offense.

 

If we ran the ball as effectively the first 5 games as we did the last 11 we would have had a top running game.

 

I'm not sure we'll see anything that drastically different than last year actually in the running game except consistency from game 1...

I hope and kind of think you are right about the last parts of your post. Our run game was pretty good once we had our starting OLine humming after AC got back from injury and Braden took the starting RT spot, and Mack got back from injury.  Hopefully our run blocking gets better with more experience for the whole unit and for the young guys in particular, too. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

I don't know why it bugs me so much but it really really REALLY bugs me when Frank talks about the run game. 

Think if it this way...   

 

When he’s talking about the running game what he’s really saying is that he wants to make the passing game even better!   Honestly!   Seriously.

 

We threw the ball 40 times a game last year.   We don’t want to do that this year.    More like 36.   Just 4 fewer pass attempts per game.   That’s all.  If we run more effectively we will also pass even better this year. 

[Cynjin]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's because coaches don't get the correlation right, because of decades and decades of the wrong thing being forced into their heads. The teams that face the least stacked boxes are the teams that have the best passing games. Old time coaches think it's the other way around. They think they need to work on the run game specifically in order to improve the run game(and this will lead to improved passing game) when in reality - you have to make the opponent fear your passing game so they will not stack the box and you will have more favorable run situations.

 

 

 

Or, if they improve the run game enough, the opponents will be forced to stack the box and then utilizing the play action pass the Colts could throw behind the LBs and, if a safety gets sucked up the Colts could throw over the top.

 

Actually, there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve the run game.  If they can run the ball when they want to, it helps the passing game and yes a better passing game can also help the run game.

[Unitas2Berry]

40 minutes ago, stitches said:

No, I actually think we have a RB stable that is deep, diverse and good enough for this team's success. The biggest thing that bugs me is that he parrots disproved narratives and I worry that he will be focusing on the wrong things. I don't mind if we are top 5 running team in the league. It certainly beats being bottom 10 running team.

I'm convinced he knows what he is doing.  I trust him.

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's because coaches don't get the correlation right, because of decades and decades of the wrong thing being forced into their heads. The teams that face the least stacked boxes are the teams that have the best passing games. Old time coaches think it's the other way around. They think they need to work on the run game specifically in order to improve the run game(and this will lead to improved passing game) when in reality - you have to make the opponent fear your passing game so they will not stack the box and you will have more favorable run situations.

I'm a big believer in balance. Good passing opens up running. Good running opens up passing. Keep the opponent guessing and off balance, and exploit what they give you (passing or rushing). No need to be stubborn or force things. 

[NewColtsFan]

24 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

 

But...   but...   but...   but....    but....

 

This can’t be!   Most people here believe Hooker just isn’t that good.   And everyone here knows posters here know better than the Colts front office or coaches or PFF...    they must be wrong!  

 

Malik Hooker just might be good?!? Wow, what a concept!   

[shasta519]

42 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know if they will be forcing it, but it certainly sounds like improving the run game is one of the main focuses according to Reich's stated objectives. He keeps repeating it in pretty much every public appearance he's made this off-season. He also keeps repeating that the improved run game will help the play action game and the passing game in general. Every single piece of statistical analysis I've seen says there is zero evidence to support that old-time narrative. Better run game does NOT improve the play-action and passing success.  It goes the other way around - better passing game improves the run game. 

 

Oh I absolutely agree. The passing game is what drives everything. Teams aren't blitzing liek they used to...because they have to be more disciplined against spread offenses. And defenses definitely aren't stacking the box against a QB like Andrew Luck...which is a big reason why the run game was so successful last year. Here is the likely RB depth chart and how often they faced stacked boxes last season:

 

Mack - 13.8%

Ware - 7.8% (because of Mahomes)

Hines - 11.8% 

 

This isn't TEN, JAC or even DAL...where defenses just get to crowd the OL. And that's a good thing...because the Colts overall were very bad against stacked boxes last season...which is partly why the run game struggled early on (I don't think teams were respecting Luck yet).

 

Once Luck proved he was back, the offense opened up and the run game flourished. Yes, the OL played a huge role in that...but Luck being Luck was a big driver.

 

IMO, the next evolution to the offense was always about adding weapons in the passing game...which they did...and not about the run game. I think for this offense to get to the next level (that Luck is capable of), it has to improve the number of chunk plays...and you do that by adding weapons and scheming playmakers open. I get the desire to impose your will against teams like NE does...but no team has ever really been able to do that. And that's certainly not how PHI won its Super Bowl.

 

Reich has talked about "outsmarting yourself" on offense. I almost feel like his theory could do that to an extent...by making the offense more predictable (running with one guy vs. throwing to one of 5 guys) or by creating more stacked boxes (if teams know you are running to set up PA), where the Colts struggle. 

[stitches]

19 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Think if it this way...   

 

When he’s talking about the running game what he’s really saying is that he wants to make the passing game even better!   Honestly!   Seriously.

 

We threw the ball 40 times a game last year.   We don’t want to do that this year.    More like 36.   Just 4 fewer pass attempts per game.   That’s all.  If we run more effectively we will also pass even better this year. 

 

On a side note - can you guess why number of run attempts(not yards average) correlate to win%? Because teams with big leads run the ball a lot to drain clock and close out the games and teams that are behind a lot, throw the ball a lot trying to get back in the game. 

 

With that said - yeah... if that's the reason we get 4 more rushes per game, I'd be plenty happy. I wouldn't be happy if the reason is that we are going more run in game neutral situations. 

[shasta519]

17 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Or, if they improve the run game enough, the opponents will be forced to stack the box and then utilizing the play action pass the Colts could throw behind the LBs and, if a safety gets sucked up the Colts could throw over the top.

 

Actually, there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve the run game.  If they can run the ball when they want to, it helps the passing game and yes a better passing game can also help the run game.

 

Nothing wrong with wanting to improve the run game...I just think we don't know what "improvement" looks like. Is it running the ball a lot more...or is it about efficiency?

 

Ultimatley, I just don't think the run game is what drives an offense. I don't think you can get teams to stack the box against Luck. So yes...you take the what the defense gives you.

[stitches]

I apologize for hijacking the thread. Lets get back to OTA talk... here are some early 'depth chart' notes from Kevin Bowen:

https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/colts-day-one-ota-notebook-calf-strain-sidelines-andrew-luck

 

Quote

 

-The Colts opened up in a nickel defense on Tuesday with the following 11 guys ‘starting’: DE-Justin Houston, DT-Margus Hunt, DE-Al-Quadin Muhammad, DT-Denico Autry, LB-Matthew Adams, LB-Skai Moore, CB-Quincy Wilson, CB-Pierre Desir, CB-Kenny Moore, S-Matthias Farley and S-Malik Hooker. The likes of DE-Kemoko Turay, LB-Anthony Walker, LB-Zaire Franklin all subbed in at various times.

 

-The Colts began Tuesday in a three wide receiver set with the following 11 guys ‘starting’: LT-Anthony Castonzo, LG-Quenton Nelson, C-Ryan Kelly, RG-Mark Glowinski, RT-Braden Smith, TE-Mo Alie-Cox, WR-T.Y. Hilton, WR-Devin Funchess, WR-Chester Rogers, RB-Marlon Mack, QB-Jacoby Brissett.

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

7 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Nothing wrong with wanting to improve the run game...I just think we don't know what "improvement" looks like. Is it running the ball a lot more...or is it about efficiency?

 

Ultimatley, I just don't think the run game is what drives an offense. I don't think you can get teams to stack the box against Luck. So yes...you take the what the defense gives you.

When you say "we don't know..." do you mean "we" as fans or are you including the Colts and coaches in that "we"?

[aaron11]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

But...   but...   but...   but....    but....

 

This can’t be!   Most people here believe Hooker just isn’t that good.  

he got off to a slow start last year, but everyone had to notice his interception on eli and his solid play overall by the end of the year

 

fans just go by what they see, and that can change a lot week to week. 

[krunk]

My gripe with Stitches view is these coaches have access to this same data that you're quoting. They have all kinds of stat men in the building with them.  I don't think they are oblivious to any of this stuff.  Then you've got actual football coaches in this forum like Coffedrinker and Princeton Tiger and very few of them really down play the importance of running the football and what it does for your passing game.  I just can't buy that all of them are just merely being stubborn and ignoring the data for age long myths.  I think there's a better reason why coaches still keep that mantra.

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

he got off to a slow start last year, but everyone had to notice his interception on eli and his solid play overall by the end of the year

 

fans just go by what they see, and that can change a lot week to week. 

The problem is the secondary is really hard to watch from the angles we are getting on TV and the fans general population doesn't dissect in detail what's happening ... they just see the big plays - the interceptions, the big pass-breakups, or a big missed tackle etc... they don't see when the QB doesn't even throw the ball because of perfect coverage or threat of playmaking by players like Hooker. The real insane stat here is 1 reception per 130 snaps... that's like ... once every 2.5 games or thereabout... there is a value to what Hooker provides both as a playmaker and as a deterrent for opposing QB's even thinking about throwing deep. 

[CR91]

For those that wanted Suh, hes off the board.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/21/ndamukong-suh-expected-to-sign-with-buccaneers/

[stitches]

47 minutes ago, krunk said:

My gripe with Stitches view is these coaches have access to this same data that you're quoting.

They have all kinds of stat men in the building with them.  I don't think they are oblivious to any of this stuff.  Then you've got actual football coaches in this forum like Coffedrinker and Princeton Tiger and very few of them really down play the importance of running the football and what it does for your passing game.  I just can't buy that all of them are just merely being stubborn and ignoring the data for age long myths.

Real NBA pundits, coaches and execs were parroting "Jump shooting teams cannot win in the NBA" and "You need low post presence to win" just like... 5-10 years ago. Data and analysis about the value of the 3 has been available for close to 20 years. You underestimate just how married people are to their old ways and how hard it is to teach the old dog new tricks, especially when this is all they've known for their whole lives and they've had success with it for their whole lives(mainly because everybody else was doing the generally the same thing) and now you are telling them what they've been taught for 20-30-50 years is wrong. Some will adapt and flourish, most won't... 

 

My favorite quote that encapsulates perfectly the situation comes from a field that is MUCH more open to new ideas than football - science. And even there, there is a long history of resistance to new ideas. Physicist Max Planck once said "Science advances one funeral at a time". What he meant was that science doesn't advance by convincing the old guard that the new ideas are correct, but by the old timers just dying out and the new generation unburdened by emotional attachments to the old stuff being allowed to just follow where the evidence points to. 

 

BTW I do NOT think the run game is meaningless or that it doesn't have a role to play in today's game. It is extremely important in situational football, in end of game situations, in goalline and 3d and 4th and short situations, etc. I just do not think it serves anyone any good perpetuating myths about its importance for things that have been repeatedly shown to not correlate to run-game success. 

 

 

[shasta519]

45 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

When you say "we don't know..." do you mean "we" as fans or are you including the Colts and coaches in that "we"?

 

Just as fans. I am sure Reich has a way to determine that improvement and what defines success toward that goal. From what I recall, he said top 5 (or maybe top 10) run game...but he didn’t elaborate on what that means. It could be ypc...yds/game...total yards...% on certain downs...or some combo. I am just curious to know what success looks like to him...and the plan to get there.

[Dingus McGirt]

5 hours ago, CR91 said:

Former colts reporter Caroline Cann now works for the panthers

 

 

Those eyebrows....yow.

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

No Stitches  just doesn't believe you have to run the ball a lot to have a successful play action game. That's the way he sees things.  Me personally I love a good ground game and I don't believe you have to go Rex Ryan to have one.

You don't have to worry about play action as a defense if you do t have a good run game. So that's absurd. 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

But...   but...   but...   but....    but....

 

This can’t be!   Most people here believe Hooker just isn’t that good.   And everyone here knows posters here know better than the Colts front office or coaches or PFF...    they must be wrong!  

 

Malik Hooker just might be good?!? Wow, what a concept!   

So.  He's the 13th rated safety, so he'd get a top 13 contract.  Not bad.  Not a top 5, but not bad.