The Seattle style D we are working towards will only work if you add blitzing or have a clock control offense to close the game

[chad72]

Hear me out.

 

2014 Seahawks vs Patriots SB, the Seahawks' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and their offense could not stay on the field in the 4th quarter. 10 point comeback from the Patriots. Dan Quinn was the defensive co-ordinator. 

 

2016 Falcons vs Patriots SB, the Falcons' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and the style of defense was what Dan Quinn brought over from Seattle. Their offense could not control clock in the 4th quarter, and a 10 plus point comeback from the Patriots.

 

2019 49ers vs Chiefs SB, the 49ers' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and their offense could not stay on the field long enough, and the plays kept piling up. 10 point comeback from the Chiefs. They ran the same style of D, Cover 3 with or without pattern matching, with Saleh as the defensive co-ordinator.

 

It is too co-incidental to me that this style of D that plays with a high energy has to be sustained with a clock control offense that can stay on the field in the 4th qtr. and be augmented with plenty of blitzing, otherwise the results have not been the best due to the D tiring out. The only time it truly worked was in a lop sided game vs the Broncos, where the opposing offense was manhandled by the DL all game.

 

Scat backs with speed and receiving skills are a problem for this style of defense. Shane Vereen, James White, Damien Williams, no one will mistake them for elite RBs but they were mighty effective against this style of defense.

 

Thoughts???

[throwing BBZ]

 It is important to have a deep front 4. I think we are there.
 And all close games are in peril if you can't pile up first downs. 

[Imgrandojji]

Reich plays a possession style that can double as a clock management style.  This is one of the areas where I think we're actually really good, especially if Rivers delivers.  We've got a young team that's just starting to come into their prime and they did a lot of learning last year, I think we have a really good shot to get into the playoff next year... assuming that next year actually happens.

[Myles]

Our O-line can provide a clock controlling offense.   We can run the ball effectively.  We also have an upgrade at QB who can help.  Having a fullback should help even more.  

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 It is important to have a deep front 4. I think we are there.
 And all close games are in peril if you can't pile up first downs. 

This. You absolutely have to have a front of maulers who can get to the QB all night long. Otherwise the dink and dunk offensives will eventually wear you down.

[Imgrandojji]

3 hours ago, RollerColt said:

This. You absolutely have to have a front of maulers who can get to the QB all night long. Otherwise the dink and dunk offensives will eventually wear you down.

Well that's note quite true.  You either have to have a lot of strength on the front line or a lot of strength on the second line.  Good coverage in the secondary gives even the greatest QBs a bad day every now and again.

 

I'll admit it is easier to find the talent to get meaty up front than it is to find a combination of skill and coaching that delivers a high level secondary though.

[RollerColt]

4 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Well that's note quite true.  You either have to have a lot of strength on the front line or a lot of strength on the second line.  Good coverage in the secondary gives even the greatest QBs a bad day every now and again.

 

I'll admit it is easier to find the talent to get meaty up front than it is to find a combination of skill and coaching that delivers a high level secondary though.

Very true, it also seems that the players on the front develop a little bit quicker than the secondary.

[DougDew]

Yes, you need a clock control offense to help the defense perform.  Steady ball control passes by an accurate even noodle armed QB will help the defense more than a guy who looks for chunk plays out of habit and a disregard for the situation.  JMO.

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, chad72 said:

Hear me out.

 

2014 Seahawks vs Patriots SB, the Seahawks' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and their offense could not stay on the field in the 4th quarter. 10 point comeback from the Patriots. Dan Quinn was the defensive co-ordinator. 

 

2016 Falcons vs Patriots SB, the Falcons' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and the style of defense was what Dan Quinn brought over from Seattle. Their offense could not control clock in the 4th quarter, and a 10 plus point comeback from the Patriots.

 

2019 49ers vs Chiefs SB, the 49ers' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and their offense could not stay on the field long enough, and the plays kept piling up. 10 point comeback from the Chiefs. They ran the same style of D, Cover 3 with or without pattern matching, with Saleh as the defensive co-ordinator.

 

It is too co-incidental to me that this style of D that plays with a high energy has to be sustained with a clock control offense that can stay on the field in the 4th qtr. and be augmented with plenty of blitzing, otherwise the results have not been the best due to the D tiring out. The only time it truly worked was in a lop sided game vs the Broncos, where the opposing offense was manhandled by the DL all game.

 

Scat backs with speed and receiving skills are a problem for this style of defense. Shane Vereen, James White, Damien Williams, no one will mistake them for elite RBs but they were mighty effective against this style of defense.

 

Thoughts???

 

I think you're mixed up on Seattle's defense.

 

They don't blitz as much as you think.    I've always read they want the pressure they bring to a QB to come from their front 4,  and the back 7 is there for pass defense.   Their LB's are good in pass protection.

 

That's what Ballard and Fluss are trying to do.   Pressure with the front 4,  cover with the back 7.     I don't think it's a coincidence that Ballard hired Dodd who came from Seattle.    They think alike. 

 

[Moosejawcolt]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think you're mixed up on Seattle's defense.

 

They don't blitz as much as you think.    I've always read they want the pressure they bring to a QB to come from their front 4,  and the back 7 is there for pass defense.   Their LB's are good in pass protection.

 

That's what Ballard and Fluss are trying to do.   Pressure with the front 4,  cover with the back 7.     I don't think it's a coincidence that Ballard hired Dodd who came from Seattle.    They think alike. 

 

U r so right with regards to the front 4. This D demands huge assets r put into the D line. That's how u begin to make this D a force.  The back 7 can b interchangeable if  the front 4 becomes dominant and needs a lot of cap space to keep it intact. Let's hope Ballard drafts well up front so we have to invest a lot of money in the DTs and DEs

 

[Superman]

I tend to think the style of defense isn't the issue, not with these examples or in general. The losing team lost the TOP battle in all three of those games, and the second half TOP was particularly unbalanced.

 

Seahawks/Pats, throwing an interception on the goal line, and being unable to sustain a drive in the fourth quarter -- both examples of poor offensive execution, which left the defense hanging out to dry.

 

Falcons/Pats, bad play calling, bad sack on third down taking them out of field goal range, and an earlier sack fumble -- both examples of poor offensive execution, which left the defense hanging. (It also takes some bad breaks to give up a 25 point lead. They got outscored 31-0 from the 8:34 mark of the third quarter. That's not normal. But let's not forget that the offense didn't score any points for a quarter and a half. None.)

 

Niners/Chiefs, bad play calling, missed throws by the QB, poor OL play -- again, poor offensive execution, leaving the defense hanging. 

 

A different example is Titans/Chiefs. The Titans run a completely different defense, different kind of personnel, and tried their best to run a ball control offense. They did a better job in TOP, but couldn't match KC's offensive output.

 

I think BBZ nailed it: To win close games, you have to be able to execute on offense. You can't have aborted drives over and over again when the other team is gaining momentum. I don't think it matters what kind of defense you're running, if the offense can't sustain drives and finish with points, the defense is going to have a tough challenge.

 

No matter what defense you run, I think good tackling, disciplined coverage, and sustained pass rush are going to be critical factors. And unless your defense is all-time elite, they will need the offense to hold up their end of the bargain. Especially in big games, and even more so against great QBs.

[PrincetonTiger]

Defensive Schemes can change from Week to Week or even play to play based on O Personnel 

    A good to great Front 4 will hide a lot of flaws and free up playmakers 

 

   

[Four2itus]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think BBZ nailed it: To win close games, you have to be able to execute on offense. You can't have aborted drives over and over again when the other team is gaining momentum. I don't think it matters what kind of defense you're running, if the offense can't sustain drives and finish with points, the defense is going to have a tough challenge.

A team can out scheme another at times, or perhaps get a win through starpower (see TY against the Texans), but in a playoff run, it does come down to getting that important first down...many times several of them in the second half of a tough game. The Wayne Chrebet's, Wes Welkers, and Julian Edelman's of the league are huge in those situations. Dallas Clark was big for the Colts many times. 

 

I have watched the Pats clear one side and execute a flat route effectively so many times, I get nauseous. I am anxious to see who Rivers ends up latching on to for that important 3rd and 4 or 3rd and 6.

[chad72]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think you're mixed up on Seattle's defense.

 

They don't blitz as much as you think.    I've always read they want the pressure they bring to a QB to come from their front 4,  and the back 7 is there for pass defense.   Their LB's are good in pass protection.

 

That's what Ballard and Fluss are trying to do.   Pressure with the front 4,  cover with the back 7.     I don't think it's a coincidence that Ballard hired Dodd who came from Seattle.    They think alike. 

 

Yes, I did realize that. My point was, unless you go 6 or 7 deep in quality on DL, even the best starting DL will wear down  while going against the best quarterbacks. It takes so much out of a front four in that style of D that you might have to mix it up more with blitzing as the game goes on if you aren’t as deep in the rotation, which is where I still think the Colts are, even with the Buckner addition. 

 

Like everyone else said, the saving grace will be an offense that can keep the TOP from getting lop sided so that that style of D doesn’t get worn down, and we can continue to rush just 4. Even with Freeney and Mathis demanding double teams consistently, rushing four stubbornly without timely blitzing cost the Colts in the past because good QBs and OLs manage to move the chains and pick apart zones behind them. At least that’s my take on just rushing four.

[Hoose]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

I tend to think the style of defense isn't the issue, not with these examples or in general. The losing team lost the TOP battle in all three of those games, and the second half TOP was particularly unbalanced.

 

Seahawks/Pats, throwing an interception on the goal line, and being unable to sustain a drive in the fourth quarter -- both examples of poor offensive execution, which left the defense hanging out to dry.

 

Falcons/Pats, bad play calling, bad sack on third down taking them out of field goal range, and an earlier sack fumble -- both examples of poor offensive execution, which left the defense hanging. (It also takes some bad breaks to give up a 25 point lead. They got outscored 31-0 from the 8:34 mark of the third quarter. That's not normal. But let's not forget that the offense didn't score any points for a quarter and a half. None.)

 

Niners/Chiefs, bad play calling, missed throws by the QB, poor OL play -- again, poor offensive execution, leaving the defense hanging. 

 

A different example is Titans/Chiefs. The Titans run a completely different defense, different kind of personnel, and tried their best to run a ball control offense. They did a better job in TOP, but couldn't match KC's offensive output.

 

I think BBZ nailed it: To win close games, you have to be able to execute on offense. You can't have aborted drives over and over again when the other team is gaining momentum. I don't think it matters what kind of defense you're running, if the offense can't sustain drives and finish with points, the defense is going to have a tough challenge.

 

No matter what defense you run, I think good tackling, disciplined coverage, and sustained pass rush are going to be critical factors. And unless your defense is all-time elite, they will need the offense to hold up their end of the bargain. Especially in big games, and even more so against great QBs.

I think this is exactly right. How many times were the Colts in a game last year only to lose late because their offense had gone totally dormant? 3 and outs one after the other in the 2nd half. JB incapable of sustaining a drive; Reich trying to figure out how to call plays with an inept QB who can’t read a Defense and is woefully inaccurate. The Colts D just wore down after a while.

 

I expect Rivers to make a significant difference in keeping drives alive. That’s where he will show his true value. And the D will flourish if he does. 

[Coffeedrinker]

22 hours ago, chad72 said:

Hear me out.

 

2014 Seahawks vs Patriots SB, the Seahawks' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and their offense could not stay on the field in the 4th quarter. 10 point comeback from the Patriots. Dan Quinn was the defensive co-ordinator. 

 

2016 Falcons vs Patriots SB, the Falcons' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and the number of plays kept piling up, and the style of defense was what Dan Quinn brought over from Seattle. Their offense could not control clock in the 4th quarter, and a 10 plus point comeback from the Patriots.

 

2019 49ers vs Chiefs SB, the 49ers' D was tired. Rushing four primarily, and their offense could not stay on the field long enough, and the plays kept piling up. 10 point comeback from the Chiefs. They ran the same style of D, Cover 3 with or without pattern matching, with Saleh as the defensive co-ordinator.

 

It is too co-incidental to me that this style of D that plays with a high energy has to be sustained with a clock control offense that can stay on the field in the 4th qtr. and be augmented with plenty of blitzing, otherwise the results have not been the best due to the D tiring out. The only time it truly worked was in a lop sided game vs the Broncos, where the opposing offense was manhandled by the DL all game.

 

Scat backs with speed and receiving skills are a problem for this style of defense. Shane Vereen, James White, Damien Williams, no one will mistake them for elite RBs but they were mighty effective against this style of defense.

 

Thoughts???

Good observations Chad72.  And I agree, to run that style a team needs a)an offense capable of long sustained drives and b) a good stable of players to rotate.  I think with the Colts oline and running game, they will be able to sustain drives and I will not be surprised if the Colts spend at least 3 draft picks on the dline.  They have a good rotation with Stewart and Day but they need to add a replacement for Sheard and a replacement for Autry and then a development rotational guy like a Lewis who can play DE or DT (Hopefully just someone better and less injury prone than Lewis)

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Good observations Chad72.  And I agree, to run that style a team needs a)an offense capable of long sustained drives and b) a good stable of players to rotate.  I think with the Colts oline and running game, they will be able to sustain drives and I will not be surprised if the Colts spend at least 3 draft picks on the dline.  They have a good rotation with Stewart and Day but they need to add a replacement for Sheard and a replacement for Autry and then a development rotational guy like a Lewis who can play DE or DT (Hopefully just someone better and less injury prone than Lewis)

 

At least 3 DL picks? I am not sure where they would all fit. Colts lost Hunt and Sheard (likely)...and replaced them with Buckner and Day (not the positions...the roster spots). I could see them adding a DE at some point...but everything else is in tact for a 9 man DL:

 

Buckner, Houston, Turay, Banogu, Muhammad, Stewart, Day, Autry, Lewis

 

[Stephen]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

At least 3 DL picks? I am not sure where they would all fit. Colts lost Hunt and Sheard (likely)...and replaced them with Buckner and Day (not the positions...the roster spots). I could see them adding a DE at some point...but everything else is in tact for a 9 man DL:

 

Buckner, Houston, Turay, Banogu, Muhammad, Stewart, Day, Autry, Lewis

 

Lewis is replaceable 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

That’s why we have Leonard and Moore who are great blitzers.

[shasta519]

8 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Lewis is replaceable 

 

Oh definitely. Basham was gone halfway through his second year...and Lewis has shown even less (in addition to the unfortunate injury issues)...so I won't be surprised if he doesn't make the roster for this third year...or gets hurt again and is released.

 

But even with that...it still seems difficult to fit at least three new DL players into the rotation. If they are late picks that end up on PS...that's different.

[chad72]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Good observations Chad72.  And I agree, to run that style a team needs a)an offense capable of long sustained drives and b) a good stable of players to rotate.  I think with the Colts oline and running game, they will be able to sustain drives and I will not be surprised if the Colts spend at least 3 draft picks on the dline.  They have a good rotation with Stewart and Day but they need to add a replacement for Sheard and a replacement for Autry and then a development rotational guy like a Lewis who can play DE or DT (Hopefully just someone better and less injury prone than Lewis)

 

I do think we need to add depth picks for our DL so that even when the offense goes through a bad spell, you have enough quality bodies to be fresh.

 

However, if I were thinking out loud, why not make a strength better? Get an OL pick by the end of Day 2 to bolster quality depth behind our strength, which right now is the OL, over anything else. I would not be surprised if we draft DL and OL on Day 2 of the draft, and no skill positions whatsoever. That would be such a Ballard thing to do if he did not trade down.

 

If we did gain an additional pick on Day 2, I can see DL, OL and WR, in whichever order. I just do not see a double dip w.r.t skill positions with Ballard in Rounds 2 and 3 whatsoever, only 1 skill position player drafted on Day 2 at the most.

[chad72]

20 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Oh definitely. Basham was gone halfway through his second year...and Lewis has shown even less (in addition to the unfortunate injury issues)...so I won't be surprised if he doesn't make the roster for this third year...or gets hurt again and is released.

 

But even with that...it still seems difficult to fit at least three new DL players into the rotation. If they are late picks that end up on PS...that's different.

 

Was that a case of Ballard getting cute for the system with the Lewis pick?

 

We all know that he was rated as a rotational/situational player that may or may not become a starter. Like the nfl.com profile above said, he showed "flashes" and that is what he has been doing as a Pro as well, "flashes of good".

[LockeDown]

As far as 1st downs or rather 3rd down conversions, I’ve always thought that’s what Rivers really brings to the table for us more so than the chunk plays ( which he will do that too). 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

At least 3 DL picks? I am not sure where they would all fit. Colts lost Hunt and Sheard (likely)...and replaced them with Buckner and Day (not the positions...the roster spots). I could see them adding a DE at some point...but everything else is in tact for a 9 man DL:

 

Buckner, Houston, Turay, Banogu, Muhammad, Stewart, Day, Autry, Lewis

 

A roster spot is not a lock for Muhammad, Autry or Lewis.  Of those three, I like Muhammed the best but all three could be easily replaceable with some of the dline talent in the draft.

[shasta519]

16 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Was that a case of Ballard getting cute for the system with the Lewis pick?

 

We all know that he was rated as a rotational/situational player that may or may not become a starter. Like the nfl.com profile above said, he showed "flashes" and that is what he has been doing as a Pro as well, "flashes of good".

 

I think so. We know Ballard loves good Senior Bowl performance and team captains...Lewis checked both boxes. He also had good length. I think they thought he was versatile and could be plug and play.

 

Obviously injuries haven't helped...but the reality is that Lewis was probably a mid Day 3 pick from a talent standpoint...someone that won't really stand out against NFL OLs. And we saw that in his rookie year...when he got erased from plays quite often.

 

I hope Banogu doesn't have the same fate. He too seemed like a "cute" pick. The difference of course...is that Banogu is incredibly athletic.

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I hope Banogu doesn't have the same fate. He too seemed like a "cute" pick. The difference of course...is that Banogu is incredibly athletic.

 

Recency draft fan bias says, "A J Brown and D K Metcalf were still on the board". I hope Banogu balls out, for the Colts sake. Can't afford to swing and miss on DL in Round 2 that many times.

 

Dre'mont Jones, I always felt, was a situational player, coming from Ohio State, much like Tyquan Lewis, he went in Round 3 to the Broncos. I am fine with drafting situational DL guys in Round 3 but the first 2 rounds, they need to be able to hold up against NFL OLs and play more downs at the next level, by Year 2, IMO.

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Recency draft fan bias says, "A J Brown and D K Metcalf were still on the board". I hope Banogu balls out, for the Colts sake. Can't afford to swing and miss on DL in Round 2 that many times.

 

Dre'mont Jones, I always felt, was a situational player, coming from Ohio State, much like Tyquan Lewis, he went in Round 3 to the Broncos. I am fine with drafting situational DL guys in Round 3 but the first 2 rounds, they need to be able to hold up against NFL OLs and play more downs at the next level, by Year 2, IMO.

 

I would have taken AJ Brown or Dre'Mont Jones, for sure. I really liked both last year. I would have been okay with Metcalf in the 4th (I know that's not a popular opinion, I'm just not a fan of that kind of receiver). 

 

And I agree that DL depth is important. Not just bodies, but if you have a good rotation of at least 7 guys across the line, you have a good chance. Buckner has been a heavy usage guy his whole career, but I don't see him giving us 1,000 snaps every season. Being able to rotate guys at 1 and 3 and having an effective Nascar package will be critical. 

 

Edit: I also think they're more willing to blitz than we're acknowledging so far in this thread. They aren't going to zone blitz all game like Dick LeBeau would, but they'll bring pressure in situations, and they have two or three good blitzers from the box. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Hoose said:

I think this is exactly right. How many times were the Colts in a game last year only to lose late because their offense had gone totally dormant? 3 and outs one after the other in the 2nd half. JB incapable of sustaining a drive; Reich trying to figure out how to call plays with an inept QB who can’t read a Defense and is woefully inaccurate. The Colts D just wore down after a while.

 

I expect Rivers to make a significant difference in keeping drives alive. That’s where he will show his true value. And the D will flourish if he does. 

 

Rivers might be good at keeping drives alive. He also might kill drives with untimely turnovers. I'm obviously hoping he brings his best to Indy, I'm just nervous he might be done.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

Recency draft fan bias says, "A J Brown and D K Metcalf were still on the board". I hope Banogu balls out, for the Colts sake. Can't afford to swing and miss on DL in Round 2 that many times.

 

Dre'mont Jones, I always felt, was a situational player, coming from Ohio State, much like Tyquan Lewis, he went in Round 3 to the Broncos. I am fine with drafting situational DL guys in Round 3 but the first 2 rounds, they need to be able to hold up against NFL OLs and play more downs at the next level, by Year 2, IMO.

 

I am not sure it's much recency bias...a LOT of Colts fans (including myself) wanted to draft AJ Brown...as well as Deebo. Metcalf was more of a wildcard. But all three of those players were huge for their teams last year...and two of them played in the conference championships. It adds insult to injury that Brown ended up with TEN...who hasn't picked a good WR since Britt.

 

Ballard also passed on Sweat...which was another fan favorite pick. That's a different case...and we will just have to assume he was off the board...because IMO...that was and will be a curious choice for years to come. But it speaks to the overall approach.

 

And on that note...and not to sound anti-Ballard (I'm not at all)...but I have not been a fan of the Day Two Edge approach. The results are still pending...but the return (and production) hasn't been there. 

 

I get that he prioritizes the trenches...but by nature...often these Day Two edge players are either raw or low ceiling players...but the positional value can lead to them getting overdrafted. Every team wants top tier DL talent (Sweat is an example of this)...so it's rare that a really good prospect makes it to Day Two (though there are exceptions like Landry and Ngakoue). 

 

Meanwhile, Day Two is typically a great spot for other positons like S, WR, RB, OL, LB. 

 

Obviously, the draft isn't that formulaic...but the empirical evidence would suggest that it is much easier to get good talent at those positions on Day Two...look no further than the Colts. So even with the success of guys like Leonard and Smith...I think there are going to be missed opportunities...especially with all of the 2nd round picks that Ballard has been able to accrue.

 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

I do think we need to add depth picks for our DL so that even when the offense goes through a bad spell, you have enough quality bodies to be fresh.

 

However, if I were thinking out loud, why not make a strength better? Get an OL pick by the end of Day 2 to bolster quality depth behind our strength, which right now is the OL, over anything else. I would not be surprised if we draft DL and OL on Day 2 of the draft, and no skill positions whatsoever. That would be such a Ballard thing to do if he did not trade down.

I could definitely see DL/OL in the 2nd.  Actually I was thinking about updating my draft contest with Cleveland and Blacklock as possible 2nd rounders. 

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

If we did gain an additional pick on Day 2, I can see DL, OL and WR, in whichever order. I just do not see a double dip w.r.t skill positions with Ballard in Rounds 2 and 3 whatsoever, only 1 skill position player drafted on Day 2 at the most.

I could see that.  And with receivers like Peoples Jones, Coulter, Durvernay available in round 3 and 4.  And then guys like Kinsey in round 6 or PFA, there is really no need to take a WR at 34 or 44.

[NewColtsFan]

9 hours ago, chad72 said:

Yes, I did realize that. My point was, unless you go 6 or 7 deep in quality on DL, even the best starting DL will wear down  while going against the best quarterbacks. It takes so much out of a front four in that style of D that you might have to mix it up more with blitzing as the game goes on if you aren’t as deep in the rotation, which is where I still think the Colts are, even with the Buckner addition. 

 

Like everyone else said, the saving grace will be an offense that can keep the TOP from getting lop sided so that that style of D doesn’t get worn down, and we can continue to rush just 4. Even with Freeney and Mathis demanding double teams consistently, rushing four stubbornly without timely blitzing cost the Colts in the past because good QBs and OLs manage to move the chains and pick apart zones behind them. At least that’s my take on just rushing four.

 

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your full meaning....

 

But, to the point I think you're now making,  Ballard has always said since the day he arrived...   he wants 10 DL on the roster,  8 to be active on game day.    He's trying to keep the DL as fresh as he can.   He doesn't want the pass rush to fall off too much during the course of any game.

[chad72]

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your full meaning....

 

But, to the point I think you're now making,  Ballard has always said since the day he arrived...   he wants 10 DL on the roster,  8 to be active on game day.    He's trying to keep the DL as fresh as he can.   He doesn't want the pass rush to fall off too much during the course of any game.

 

I was meaning quantity in rotation is not the same as quality of rotation. Out of these:

 

Buckner, Houston, Turay, Banogu, Muhammad, Stewart, Day, Autry, Lewis

 

I would say Buckner, Houston, Turay, Stewart, Day would be my Top 5. I don't think we have the depth in "quality" to survive a drop off after that. I felt the 2013 Seahawks won the SB because they went 7 or 8 DL deep in quality as much as they did in quantity. 

 

Michael Bennett, Brandon Mebane, Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald, plus Bruce Irvin and Cliff Avril off the edges, that team was loaded on the DL, and a lot of them left in free agency after the 2013 season. We need to get to that spot, and the teams that ran out of gas, did not have the same depth on DL, I felt. But then, those 2013 Seahawks had playmakers at all levels of D as well, not sure if that occurrence can be repeated again. 

[NewColtsFan]

10 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I was meaning quantity in rotation is not the same as quality of rotation. Out of these:

 

Buckner, Houston, Turay, Banogu, Muhammad, Stewart, Day, Autry, Lewis

 

I would say Buckner, Houston, Turay, Stewart, Day would be my Top 5. I don't think we have the depth in "quality" to survive a drop off after that. I felt the 2013 Seahawks won the SB because they went 7 or 8 DL deep in quality as much as they did in quantity. 

 

Michael Bennett, Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald, plus Bruce Irvin and Cliff Avril off the edges, that team was loaded on the DL, and a lot of them left in free agency after the 2013 season. We need to get to that spot, and the teams that ran out of gas, did not have the same depth on DL, I felt. But then, those 2013 Seahawks had playmakers at all levels of D as well, not sure if that occurrence can be repeated again. 

 

Good post.   And agreed.

 

I've been saying since just before the 2018 draft that I expect Ballard to take at least one DL in every draft he participates in.   So, yes,  I expect one in this draft.   I'm not sure when,  but I do think we take one. 

 

We took two in 17,  Basham and Stewart

Two in 18,  Turay and Lewis

Two in 19,  Benagu and Green

 

I'm not expecting two in this draft,  but we signed Buckner and Day in FA.    I still think we draft one more DL here in 20.

 

Appreciate the exchange.