Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
WarGhost21

Jacoby Brissett Impressions: (Perma Merge)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, stitches said:

I am on the verge of giving up on talking about Brissett. It's a bit of a moot point... It almost doesn't matter what's happening on the field. If we win, it will be counted as some sort of a statement game for Brissett - if he throws well - see he's a great thrower, if he hands the ball for 250 yards, it will be - see, he's a great leader, etc. 

 

The level of snark and "I told you so" comments regarding the play of Brissett for a game in which we ran for 250 yards and gave up 7 points in non-garbage time is kind of surprising to me. It smacks of desperation and lack of any sort of desire to objectively evaluate what's happening on the field. 

I can totally agree with this bro its ridiculous! had some friends of mine try to tell me after the game that JB played like a stud when he was average as hell yesterday day that's just a fact no ifs and or buts about it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

 

 

The point is they can't do it without sacrificing their pass defense. And we absolutely shredded them downfield in the passing game, with the "not good enough" Jacoby Brissett.

 

So either way, it's always effective. You can build an entire offense around that. Teams have to game plan for it, which opens them up.

Yep.   

JB in the earlier game vs the Texans:

image.png.a0983f144e799ed89168d6ea919939b9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Reich isn't.  He said we were 20th last year. And the Colts were, at 107.4 yards per game as the metric.

 

** And in 2018, while it wasn’t among the worst in the league, the Colts’ run game, Reich said, just wasn’t good enough — “We were 20th last year,” Reich said with a scowl, referring to the team’s NFL ranking in yards per game.  **

 

This year, Colts are 4th (top 5-7)  at 141.1 yards per game.

 

This year Colts are 4th in rushing attempts (frequency) as well in 2019.  Last year the Colts were 17th.

 

Seems to be just as Reich envisioned.

 

I seriously doubt he meant it for us to run in 47% of the (game neutral) snaps with Luck. This would be a fireable offense. We were also tied for 21st in YPA. Yards per game is a bad measurement of the strength of the run game and it can be misleading on several fronts. For example, you might run a ton and get a ton of yardage because of gaining big leads and then trying to drain the clock and manage the game at the end. In fact this is why a lot of the best teams have high rush YPG - they get big leads with good passing game and then pile up runs and yards on the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I seriously doubt he meant it for us to run in 47% of the (game neutral) snaps with Luck. This would be a fireable offense. Yards per game is a bad measurement of the strength of the run game and it can be misleading on several fronts. For example, you might run a ton and get a ton of yardage because of gaining big leads and then trying to drain the clock and manage the game at the end. In fact this is why most of the best teams have high YPG - they get big leads with good passing game and then pile up runs and yards on the ground. This explains why a lot of those best offensive teams pass a lot in game neutral situations even though they get high total rush yards at the end. 

I think yards per game is fairly accurate of how the teams run game is.  Especially for a Colts team without a running QB.

 

I'm sure our % of running plays is up because of Luck being gone.   But it is working OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

I seriously doubt he meant it for us to run in 47% of the (game neutral) snaps with Luck.

 

Many teams are getting away from the throwing 65% or more of the time and trying to get to the almost 55% pass to 45% run balance.  Here's the top 13 teams throwing the most ( >61% of the time) -

 

Team                                     Pass%
Atlanta Falcons                    67.7
Cincinnati Bengals              67.2
Miami Dolphins                  66.7
New York Giants                 66.2
Kansas City Chiefs              65.3          *
Tampa Bay Buccaneers     64.3
Los Angeles Chargers        62.9          *
Carolina Panthers              62.3
Arizona Cardinals              62.3
Chicago Bears                     62.1
New York Jets                      61.6
Washington Redskins       61.3
Pittsburgh Steelers            61.1          *

 

How are they doing?

 

1 hour ago, stitches said:

This would be a fireable offense. We were also tied for 21st in YPA. Yards per game is a bad measurement of the strength of the run game

 

 

Frank evidently respects it. He quoted it as a goal.

 

1 hour ago, stitches said:

and it can be misleading on several fronts. For example, you might run a ton and get a ton of yardage because of gaining big leads and then trying to drain the clock and manage the game at the end. In fact this is why a lot of the best teams have high rush YPG - they get big leads with good passing game and then pile up runs and yards on the ground. 

 

And teams that fall behind abandon the run throw a lot (higher %).  Reich would want a much better run/pass balance, even with Luck. Not get top 5 Rush performance just going from 4.2 YPC to 5.9 YPC... on the same limited amount of carries.  He knew it would take an increase of both touches and YPC ,together to achieve the goal.

 

Remember, his quotes about this were in March of 2018, not days after Luck retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Seems like people are talking about our run game like they did after the Chiefs, like we're going to be able to run down every team's throats. We've seen before and since then, Oakland, Houston, Miami, and other games, that we're not always gonna be so dominant on the ground.

I guess this post doesn't really have much to do with JB, just pointing out that we're about to face the Texans who shut us down on the ground and could very well do it again. Especially without Mack.

 

Yeah...people talk it's this consistent feature for the offense. Sure would have been nice to have that run blocking the past two weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Many teams are getting away from the throwing 65% or more of the time and trying to get to the almost 55% pass to 45% run balance.  Here's the top 13 teams throwing the most ( >61% of the time) -

 

Team                                     Pass%
Atlanta Falcons                    67.7
Cincinnati Bengals              67.2
Miami Dolphins                  66.7
New York Giants                 66.2
Kansas City Chiefs              65.3          *
Tampa Bay Buccaneers     64.3
Los Angeles Chargers        62.9          *
Carolina Panthers              62.3
Arizona Cardinals              62.3
Chicago Bears                     62.1
New York Jets                      61.6
Washington Redskins       61.3
Pittsburgh Steelers            61.1          *

 

How are they doing?

 

 

This is what I said above - the general stats are sometimes misleading - simply put - teams that fall behind a lot try to get back in games by throwing a lot. Teams that get ahead a lot, try to drain clock and run a lot at end of games. I've found that the game-neutral % are a better indicator for 1. tendencies(the % of pass vs run plays) and 2. strength of the chosen play.

 

Those stats are kind of hard to get and I haven't found a specific place, there are several users on twitter that have those stats and post them sporadically. Ours are not very different between game neutral and general(because a lot of our games are close so not a lot of blowouts to skew pass% and rush% numbers)

 

Quote

 

Frank evidently respects it. He quoted it as a goal.

 

 

Yes and I disagreed with him at the time. I also disagreed with his reasoning for wanting to improve that part of the game. But that's irrelevant here. 

 

Quote

 

And teams that fall behind abandon the run throw a lot (higher %).  Reich would want a much better run/pass balance, even with Luck. Not get top 5 Rush performance just going from 4.2 YPC to 5.9 YPC... on the same limited amount of carries.  He knew it would take an increase of both touches and YPC ,together to achieve the goal.

 

 

Yep. But again - that's why we have to look at the game neutral situations. 

 

I mean... we went from 4.2 to 4.6 and we are now tied for 7th-10th. Top 5 is actually 4.9, not 5.9, so we are 0.3 away from being top 5. 

 

Balance is a weird thing. I personally am not a fan of balance for balance's sake. What's important is how efficient is your offense so, whatever ratio gives you the best efficiency and best chance to win the most games is what we should be aiming at. That ratio would be different for different QBs you have and most coaches in the league seem to intuitively understand that and adjust(the better passers get higher pass%, the worse passers and/or good runners get higher run%). (again - I am talking about game neutral situations here)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I'm curious as to why people bring up Winston all the time, he's absolutely nothing like Brissett in terms of play style? 

 

Yeah...I don't think Ballard would even draft a Jameis Winston either. But peak Winston is a much better QB than JB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

 

The bolded is patently false.  They are leaning on the running game far more than they were before Andrew Luck retired.  The same was true under Pagano when Jacoby took over in 2017. 

 

In the 2016 and 2018 season while Andrew Luck led the team we passed more often in terms of the pass to run ratio, passing roughly 62% and running 38% of the time in both years.  That made us 15th in 2016 and 9th in 2018.  In 2017 under Pagano when Jacoby was the QB, we passed 55% of the time and ran the other 45% of offensive plays (which puts us at 27th in 2017).  This year so far  we are passing just 53% of the time and running 47% (which puts us at 29th).  Prior to JB's injury, this ratio was a tad higher, but we were still bottom 5 or 6. 

 

That's a significant change in scheme and the trend exists under two entirely different coaching infrastructures.  And say what you will about Jacoby's weapons being a limitation on his game (which I would argue is also patently false), Jacoby and Luck have had the same offensive personnel in 2018 and 2019.  The same offensive line.  The same running backs.  The same receivers and tight ends.  There's obviously some variation in the health of those groups, but there's nothing anyone can do about that.  

 

There is clear indication that Jacoby is being protected from having to be the guy this team is structured around.  Whereas Andrew Luck was whom the entire offense was run through and depended on, the offensive line is now the shoulders on which this team stands.  That does not change the fact that Jacoby is still a heck of a player and an absolute necessity for this team's success.  Does he have significant flaws?  Sure.  Not many QBs play like Aaron Rodgers.  He's still a better option considering the current roster's QBs or the field of available free agents 

 

 

I can post you direct quotes from Frank Reich that say otherwise. I'm not talking about last year. Its irrelevant.

 

Also, sometimes more pass attempts just means you were behind more often. It doesn't necessarily mean that is what they wanted to do. We have been in every game this year. That means the running game is still in play. That means more run attempts. It's quite simple. 

 

You have to stop pretending these stats make your argument for you. They dont. You need to have perspective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

 

Also, sometimes more pass attempts just means you were behind more often. It doesn't necessarily mean that is what they wanted to do. We have been in every game this year. That means the running game is still in play. That means more run attempts. It's quite simple. 

 

 

I agree.   Close games usually equal more rush attempts.   

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, stitches said:

I mean... we went from 4.2 to 4.6 and we are now tied for 7th-10th. Top 5 is actually 4.9, not 5.9, so we are 0.3 away from being top 5. 

 

He's talking total yards.  He mentioned 20th last year, and that is where the Colts were in total yards. 20th. Going from 4.2 to 4.6 last year only takes the team from 20th to 15th in total yards, and tied for 10th in YPC.  I guarantee that statistic doesn't wipe the scowl from Reich's face. What the Colts are doing this year is probably on pace.

 

It's also harder to run when your opponent knows you are trying to shorten the game and run clock.  They don't play pass as hard and key on the run. That's why there are so many late game punts without having moved the chains much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Finally!  Running game is important. Especially in outdoors winter weather. Playoff conditions.

 

 

But a running game and stingy defense are two things that travel well, and survive in poor, windy, wintry weather. Something the Colts haven't really had over the years.  Let's hope the run game and D continue!  I'm all for it, even if that means Brissett won't put up Star Wars numbers...

 

I know Ballard has said this...and I don't disagree with the concept...a strong run game and stingy defense do built for those type of conditions. But does it really matter? That's a serious question...is there empirical evidence of this?

 

Recent history seems to suggest that the goal should actually be to NOT have to travel. And I agree with this...getting HFA and being able to use that advantage is critical. 

 

I know people say "just getting in is important"...but that hasn't really been the case. The 2012 BAL team was the last seed ranked lower than a #2 seed to make it to the Super Bowl. 

 

A truly elite defense (DEN in Manning's last season)...or a dynamic MVP QB (CAR with Newton) have been outliers...but it's typically the teams with top tier QBs and (passing) offenses that have occupied those top two seeds. 

 

And setting aside that DEN team in Manning's last season, I believe that SF/BAL Super Bowl is the last one to not feature two QBs inside the top 10 in QBR.

 

SEA is a pretty good example of the stingy defense and strong run game approach...but they also had an elite QB. And when they went to those Super Bowls, they had HFA. When they didn't have HFA...they didn't make it out of the divisional round. 

 

I also look at the pre-Mahomes KC teams (specifically from 2014-2017)...they fit the model (stingy defense and strong run game)...definitely built to travel well and win in the playoffs. They were 1-3 in the playoffs...and two of those losses came at home. 

 

And then, with Mahomes and a top passing offense, they looked pretty damn good in those conditions.

 

I actually think there are parallels between those pre-Mahomes KC teams and these Colts teams...and I have thrown out a less athletic Alex Smith type as a ceiling for JB. 

 

I hope that the Colts can do what KC couldn't do...but I think QB is an area that will have to improve (or upgrade) for them to get to the next level.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

JB was playing on 1 1/2 legs and didn't have his top 2 receivers. 

That scramble and TD pass was as good as any QB in the league. 

Every QB in the league is only as good as the pieces around him. 

Every QB in the league is 'charged' with not making mistakes. 

IMO you are wrong in him not being the guy. 

He is this teams leader and this team is only going as far as JB takes them. 

The Colts would be 9-1 had Vinny made his kicks. 

I am sorry you don't see it. 

I didnt say he wasnt "the guy", in fact I specifically said I'm not ruling that possibility out.  I said he wasnt "that" guy, meaning he's not charged with carrying the whole offense like Luck or Manning was. 

 

The professed strategy of this regime concerning team building has been to build out from the trenches.   Jacoby is the leader, a darn good one, but hes not the offensive centerpiece of the Ballard/Reich era colts.  I believe the O line is intended to be.  This is not a criticism, its merely echoing the team philosophy.  "Its not about one guy".

 

This is a net positive.

 

The previous Colts incarnation went only as far as luck could take it.  This current iteration (if the people running it are to be believed) will go as far as the FO talent evaluation, draft, player development, scheme,  coaching, and execution will take it. 

 

This is a holistic approach and a net positive.

 

It's not on one player, namely jacoby, to cover up the mistakes and shortcomings of the FO and coaches like Andrew was forced to.

 

This is a net positive.

 

I'm a huge supporter of Brissett in his new role.  Colts are lucky to have him and I hope he does prove to be "the guy",  but hes not a one man "world beater", nor is he a "rolling ball of butcher knives".

 

According to his own head coach, as of the start of this season, hes a "top 20 NFL quarterback".  I dont think hes even a fully developed player yet,  its possible he'll get better.  Jury is still out.

 

Not every opinion short of yours is an attack on Jacoby personally.  There is room to step back and look at the larger picture.  I hope you can see that.

 

And yes, I too am disappointed in vinny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I can totally agree with this bro its ridiculous! had some friends of mine try to tell me after the game that JB played like a stud when he was average as hell yesterday day that's just a fact no ifs and or buts about it. 

If that was "average" to you then you have no idea what you're talking about and I can stop taking you seriously.

 

Brissett wasn't average.  he was sufficient.  If you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between the two concepts, that explains your position, but it's the only explanation I can think of.

 

you're also exhibit A of what people say when they say that people pay lip service to actually understanding that Brissett is elite, then criticize him whenever he doesn't throw for 4 TDs and 300 yards, demonstrating that no, they don't actually get it at all.

 

it all rounded up to a good day for the entire offense.  Which I mean, if the offense hadn't gotten off the ground we know the focus would have been on Brissett, so let's be consistent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

If that was "average" to you then you have no idea what you're talking about and I can stop taking you seriously.

 

Brissett wasn't average.  he was sufficient.  If you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between the two concepts, that explains your position, but it's the only explanation I can think of.

 

you're also exhibit A of what people say when they say that people pay lip service to actually understanding that Brissett is elite, then criticize him whenever he doesn't throw for 4 TDs and 300 yards, demonstrating that no, they don't actually get it at all.

 

it all rounded up to a good day for the entire offense.  Which I mean, if the offense hadn't gotten off the ground we know the focus would have been on Brissett, so let's be consistent here.

oh yeah silly me you are right he was a stud and sure was elite at handing the ball off sunday. he didnt play bad and he didnt play that good he just played to not lose the game like he always does. we sure as hell didnt win because of JB we would have still won if any other QB was handing the ball off. I swear talking about JB with you is like talking to his mother if she was an obsessive psychopath.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow

 

Ever heard of a happy medium?

 

I didn't say he was a stud.  I said he was sufficient.  And he was.

 

 

The only people who should be objecting to that are those dumb enough to look at an adequate job and call it average.  The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Wow

 

Ever heard of a happy medium?

 

I didn't say he was a stud.  I said he was sufficient.  And he was.

 

 

The only people who should be objecting to that are those dumb enough to look at an adequate job and call it average.  The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

all he did was hand the ball off you are crazy if you think we dont do the same thing with literally any QB in the league. stop acting like his ordinary games are some statement games when he hardly does anything.

 

and you call him adequate its basically average only you obsessive trolls think average means terrible for some reason when it clearly doesn't 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

If that was "average" to you then you have no idea what you're talking about and I can stop taking you seriously.

 

Brissett wasn't average.  he was sufficient.  If you're one of those people who can't tell the difference between the two concepts, that explains your position, but it's the only explanation I can think of.

 

you're also exhibit A of what people say when they say that people pay lip service to actually understanding that Brissett is elite, then criticize him whenever he doesn't throw for 4 TDs and 300 yards, demonstrating that no, they don't actually get it at all.

 

it all rounded up to a good day for the entire offense.  Which I mean, if the offense hadn't gotten off the ground we know the focus would have been on Brissett, so let's be consistent here.

"Sufficient" is a very subjective descriptor, so you should probably qualify it outside of the typical Websters definition. Websters says "enough", or "adequate". So sure you could say it was sufficient to win the game in the context that we ran the ball very well, and the D played lights out. Sufficient doesn't mean good though, or apply to whether he was average or not.

 

"Average" however can be objectively quantified and compared to others. His QBR was 17th in the league this week, which in a 32 team league is almost the definition of average since it's +/- 1 from the median. 

 

Purely in terms of the game, JB had a few absolutely great plays. Objectively though, the overall performance was pretty average relative to others in the league.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

"Sufficient" is a very subjective descriptor, so you should probably qualify it outside of the typical Websters definition. Websters says "enough", or "adequate". So sure you could say it was sufficient to win the game in the context that we ran the ball very well, and the D played lights out. Sufficient doesn't mean good though, or apply to whether he was average or not.

 

"Average" however can be objectively quantified and compared to others. His QBR was 17th in the league this week, which in a 32 team league is almost the definition of average since it's +/- 1 from the median. 

 

Purely in terms of the game, JB had a few absolutely great plays. Objectively though, the overall performance was pretty average relative to others in the league.

I too was wondering why on earth he used the word adequate. but like I have said to the JB lovers average means very bad or terrible for some weird reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

all he did was hand the ball off you are crazy if you think we dont do the same thing with literally any QB in the league. stop acting like his ordinary games are some statement games when he hardly does anything.

 

and you call him adequate its basically average only you obsessive trolls think average means terrible for some reason when it clearly doesn't 

You seem to forget the times he got out of pressure and delivered a key throw.  

He wasn't great, but he ran the offense well.   If the running game is working well he used it.   If not, he would pass.

He had to pass against the Texans, so he did.  

He's never going to be great, but he can run this offense very well.  

 

image.png.0369dcc7d9d954d7c7727047c5ca8832.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I too was wondering why on earth he used the word adequate. but like I have said to the JB lovers average means very bad or terrible for some weird reason.

Because we know what average QB play actually looks like and it's well below Brissett's actual level of play. 

 

We shhould have gotten a taste with Bryan Hoyer, he's one flavor of average, one decent game and one game where he gets blown the heck out, and the mean of those 2 performances was roughly league average.

 

Sufficient in this case to me means -- he did his job.  He didn't do more than his job, he didn't do less than his job.   That's more or less the vector Brissett's lived at all year.  Not elite, but he does his job.

 

Brissett waas probably a bit better than this definition of "sufficient" in last night's game but it gives us a starting place to discuss his performance that's in the ballpark of sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Because we know what average QB play actually looks like.  We shhould have gotten a taste with Bryan Hoyer, he's one flavor of average, one decent game and one game where he gets blown the heck out, and the mean of those 2 performances was roughly league average.

 

Sufficient in this case to me means -- he did his job.  He didn't do more than his job, he didn't do less than his job.   That's more or less the vector Brissett's lived at all year.  Not elite, but he does his job.

 

Brissett waas probably a bit better than this definition of "sufficient" in last night's game but it gives us a starting place to discuss his performance that's in the ballpark of sanity.

umm no hoyer is bad JB is average that's the difference you can't seem to see. the whole world knows hoyer isnt very good.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

He didn't do more than his job, he didn't do less than his job.

so he was average just like I'm saying. he played to not lose the game and wasnt the reason we won. this is the literal version of average hell he even is ranked as average among the other 31 QBs. it's not an insult to call him average like you think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I too was wondering why on earth he used the word adequate. but like I have said to the JB lovers average means very bad or terrible for some weird reason.

There's a lot mental and verbal gymnastics that go on when it comes to this topic. That's why I prefer objective data. Way too much spin and subjective narratives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

There's a lot mental and verbal gymnastics that go on when it comes to this topic. That's why I prefer objective data. Way too much spin and subjective narratives.

I just wish people would stop assuming average is bad it doesn't mean that at all haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

so he was average

 

lol ok buddy.

 

Taht wasn't an average performance out there.  The numbers are in the middle of the pack yes, but that's because the running game was so dominant. 

 

The fact that he had a middle of the pack passing attack when we also rushed for 200+ yards is NOT an average performance.  Especially against that pass rush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

lol ok buddy.

 

Taht wasn't an average performance out there.  The numbers are in the middle of the pack yes, but that's because the running game was so dominant. 

 

The fact that he had a middle of the pack passing attack when we also rushed for 200+ yards is NOT an average performance.  Especially against that pass rush

ok buddy if you think that performance was so much better than literally every game this year besides the Houston game then idk what to tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I just wish people would stop assuming average is bad it doesn't mean that at all haha

I break performance down into tiers. 1-5 (elite) and 28-32 (awful), are the extreme end caps. 6-12 (good) and 21-27 (bad) as the next tiers, and 13-20 is all average... 13-16 is slightly above average while 17-20 is slightly below average. Pretty simple. Most of JBs stats are in the average (slightly below) tier, with some in the bad... 

 

Folks may disagree with the tiers, or say stats don't matter, but at least it's objective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Purely in terms of the game, JB had a few absolutely great plays. Objectively though, the overall performance was pretty average relative to others in the league.

 

Phillip Rivers could have done well to be more 'pretty average' last night-

 

fVLfmYY.jpg

 

Throwing 73%, and running it 27%, with 2 guys getting almost 5 yards per carry?

 

Almost glad i couldn't watch the game last night.  That QB stat line looks horrid.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I break performance down into tiers. 1-5 (elite) and 28-32 (awful), are the extreme end caps. 6-12 (good) and 21-27 (bad) as the next tiers, and 13-20 is all average... 13-16 is slightly above average while 17-20 is slightly below average. Pretty simple. Most of JBs stats are in the average (slightly below) tier, with some in the bad... 

 

Folks may disagree with the tiers, or say stats don't matter, but at least it's objective.

not a bad way to look at it at all its actually pretty fair imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Phillip Rivers could have done well to be more 'pretty average' last night-

 

fVLfmYY.jpg

 

Throwing 73%, and running it 27%, with 2 guys getting almost 5 yards per carry?

 

Almost glad i couldn't watch the game last night.  That QB stat line looks horrid.

It was ugly. Even with 4 INTs, the game was close. It was fascinating to see KC win with rushing and defense. I keep thinking LAC will turn the corner, but they're just bad lol. I thought they'd compete for the division this year with KC losing pieces on D... NOPE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

oh yeah silly me you are right he was a stud and sure was elite at handing the ball off sunday. he didnt play bad and he didnt play that good he just played to not lose the game like he always does. we sure as hell didnt win because of JB we would have still won if any other QB was handing the ball off. I swear talking about JB with you is like talking to his mother if she was an obsessive psychopath.

I don't think the plan was for JB to win the game for us in that one anymore than it was Bellichicks plan for Tom Brady to win the game when the Pats came in here and steamrolled us with Jonas Gray.  The plan was to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball!  Any QB is going to be average with that type of plan.   Running the ball was best for the team considering we were playing backups at just about every single WR position.  Pass rushing is the Jags strength and their best players outside of the DL are in the secondary.  The plan was to attack their weaknesses.  Jacoby executed the game plan exactly as they planned it.   I ain't tripping!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

not a bad way to look at it at all its actually pretty fair imo

Stats scare folks when they love a guy that struggles. They love stats though as soon as it fits their argument. IMO, stats are just stats... not good or bad, just data.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, krunk said:

I don't think the plan was for JB to win the game for us in that one anymore than it was Bellichicks plan for Tom Brady to win the game when the Pats came in here and steamrolled us with Jonas Gray.  The plan was to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball!  Any QB is going to be average with that type of plan.   Running the ball was best for the team considering we were playing backups at just about every single WR position.  Pass rushing is the Jags strength and their best players outside of the DL are in the secondary.  The plan was to attack their weaknesses.  Jacoby executed the game plan exactly as they planned it.   I ain't tripping!

exactly so he definitely wasnt a stud like I said some have stated he played average and that is fine that doesn't mean he was bad

 

the word average scares his biggest fans cause they translate it to bad for some weird reason I'm sure you know the 2 or 3 people I'm talking about 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

exactly so he definitely wasnt a stud like I said some have stated he played average and that is fine that doesn't mean he was bad

Yeah he was okay, but I am saying I don't think the game plan itself was for him to throw for a whole bunch of yards in that one any way.  So anybody looking for gawdy numbers from JB in that game was never going to get it because that wasn't the Colts aim.  Their aim was to push them dudes around and punk them out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, krunk said:

Yeah he was okay, but I am saying I don't think the game plan itself was for him to throw for a whole bunch of yards in that one any way.  So anybody looking for gawdy numbers from JB in that game was never going to get it anyway. 

I get that this game but that cant be said for the other games that are almost exactly like this one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people are so hard on JB.  People say he is average and he plays not to lose.  Maybe part of the reason he looks average is because he is playing with average WR's at best and they are having a hard time getting open.  With Funchess gone game one TY was it.  And he's now missing games.  Lacking quality WRs might cause you to hold onto the ball longer as he's hoping they eventually get open.   And he's certainly not throwing a lot of interceptions which is a good thing.  He doesn't call the plays and it doesn't look like he changes the play at the LOS much.  Maybe playing not to lose is on the coach.  He is calling the plays.  He is game planing.  He thinks he knows what will work and he knows what he has to work with.  Considering what JB has to work with and all of our injuries it's remarkable we are currently sitting in 1st place in the division.  I really hope we get a chance to see JB play with a good receiving core for a change.  I have a feeling he might turn out to be the real deal.  I think he still has a lot of upside.  He needs some more talent around him so Reich can open up his offense and give him a chance to show what he can do with some real weapons to work with. JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

It was ugly. Even with 4 INTs, the game was close. It was fascinating to see KC win with rushing and defense. I keep thinking LAC will turn the corner, but they're just bad lol. I thought they'd compete for the division this year with KC losing pieces on D... NOPE.

 

Just heard some new info on Rivers, Last 4 full games-

 

Cmp       Att       %          Yds          Y/A         TD's        INT's         Win       Loss

  85         140      60        1055         7.7           4               8                 2             2

 

Brissett over his last 4 full games-

 

 74          117     63          827          6.7          5                2                 4              0

 

Sometimes less is more... and more is less.  :D  According to the data...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Just heard some new info on Rivers, Last 4 full games-

 

Cmp       Att       %          Yds          Y/A         TD's        INT's         Win       Loss

  85         140      60        1055         7.7           4               8                 2             2

 

Brissett over his last 4 full games-

 

 74          117     63          827          6.7          5                2                 4              0

 

Sometimes less is more... and more is less.  :D  According to the data...

 

I'd agree less bad is more. I don't agree less good is more. :thmup:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...