Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Brissett, Mack, or Hooker


Recommended Posts

Who got most spited by the colts this off-season?

 

Brissett was the starting QB and now the colts brought two QBs basically stating he's never starting in Indy again barring injury.

 

Mack coming off a breakout year with over 1100 yards and 8 tds and now he goes into a contract year sharing carries with a RB the colts traded up for.

 

Hooker has been handicapped by a defense that does not take advantage of his best asset and not only did the colts not pick up his option, but they drafted his most likely replacement.

 

Bad colts bad haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of being thrown to the curb on the spite thing, lol.  I've gotta go with JB.  Went from starter to doubtfully getting any meaningful snaps (barring injury) this coming regular season.  Unless the wheels fall off the Rivers wagon JB doesn't get another chance to shine.

 

Mack and Hooker may or may not start this season, but they will at least be in some sort of rotation to begin the year as the rooks get onboard.  Also, Blackmon isn't expected to be ready until October.  I really think Hooker will be better this year due to the pressure we'll get up front.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I say Mack

 

Look its easy, JB got his chance under weird circumstances and he isn't the real deal. 

 

Hooker was a first round pick and expectations are high. He played well at times and showed his playmaking abilities but also had some bad moments and injuries. 

 

Mack was a 4th round pick, developed quite nicely and just had his best season. Can you expect more? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to say Hooker, but I still think things will work out after he has a better year this season.

 

Brissett - I can't say he was thrown to the curb. He got his chance, and that's all he can ask. Through college and his years in the NFL, he's never been a prolific guy so expectation have always been low. 

 

Mack - We all know how RBs are looked at these days. He was a later round pick too. He's been good, but he's also had the benefit of a good/great OL. I'm perfectly OK with drafting a RB every 3 to 4 years until we find a guy we really "need" to pay big. That's a bit harsh, but it's business, and the reality of the position.

 

Hooker - He's not really allowed to do what he does best given our bad pass rush and soft zone. He's the kind of guy that could go to a different team/defense and crush it. Purely my opinion, but I think we'll see a more aggressive D this year with a better pass rush, and a more ball hawking secondary.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooker.

 

The coaches and GM have gone out of their way to praise Mack and Brissett and talked nonstop about how it's a two headed monster and JB is great for the locker room etc. No one's said anything along those lines about Hooker AFAIK.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CR91 said:

Who got most spited by the colts this off-season?

 

Brissett was the starting QB and now the colts brought two QBs basically stating he's never starting in Indy again barring injury.

 

Mack coming off a breakout year with over 1100 yards and 8 tds and now he goes into a contract year sharing carries with a RB the colts traded up for.

 

Hooker has been handicapped by a defense that does not take advantage of his best asset and not only did the colts not pick up his option, but they drafted his most likely replacement.

 

Bad colts bad haha

 

Here we go again.....

 

Why do posters here think they legitimately understand how a player should be used better than the coaches.   People who write this stuff are second guessing the following.....       Chris Ballard,  Matt Eberflus,  Frank Reich. 

 

Why do people do this?    This poster isn't alone.   Other posters have done this,  especially about Hooker.    

 

I wouldn't object if someone posted about not picking up the 5th year option.   That decision has been second guessed across the media.   But how Hooker is used?   I submit there's almost no one here with enough knowledge to fully know whether Hooker is being used correctly or not.   These threads pop up in the off-season when there's less to talk about and this is the worst off-season for that.    So,  here we are...   again.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here we go again.....

 

Why do posters here think they legitimately understand how a player should be used better than the coaches.   People who write this stuff are second guessing the following.....       Chris Ballard,  Matt Eberflus,  Frank Reich. 

 

Why do people do this?    This poster isn't alone.   Other posters have done this,  especially about Hooker.    

 

I wouldn't object if someone posted about not picking up the 5th year option.   That decision has been second guessed across the media.   But how Hooker is used?   I submit there's almost no one here with enough knowledge to fully know whether Hooker is being used correctly or not.   These threads pop up in the off-season when there's less to talk about and this is the worst off-season for that.    So,  here we are...   again.

 

 

 What's the point of having a message board if folks can't state their....

 opinion ?

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go with Mack.

 

JB could never be the answer, because the Colts gave him $30m they didn't "have" to. They've done alright by him, imo.

 

Hooker still will be able to prove his worth and still possibly be back next year. Blackmon as been talked about is probably more SS, bit we will see.

 

Mack, coming off a pretty good year, will not be able to try and build on his momentum splitting carries. I expect him to jave a big year, but he lost some money on his next contract for sure. Doubt he will be back next year, and splitting carries will hurt his production to the point where it will hurt hos FA offers, imo.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here we go again.....

 

Why do posters here think they legitimately understand how a player should be used better than the coaches.   People who write this stuff are second guessing the following.....       Chris Ballard,  Matt Eberflus,  Frank Reich. 

 

Why do people do this?    This poster isn't alone.   Other posters have done this,  especially about Hooker.    

 

I wouldn't object if someone posted about not picking up the 5th year option.   That decision has been second guessed across the media.   But how Hooker is used?   I submit there's almost no one here with enough knowledge to fully know whether Hooker is being used correctly or not.   These threads pop up in the off-season when there's less to talk about and this is the worst off-season for that.    So,  here we are...   again.

 

 

Just a armchair GM like the rest of us. All I'm saying is Hooker not allowed to roam has hurt his stock. When he was a lot to roam, QBs hardly threw to him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Just a armchair GM like the rest of us. All I'm saying is Hooker not allowed to roam has hurt his stock. When he was a lot to roam, QBs hardly threw to him.

When did “Hooker is not allowed to roam” become accepted fact?   I haven’t seen that stated by Fluss, or Frank, or Ballard.   Who says this is true and what facts support this?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, indykmj said:

 

 What's the point of having a message board if folks can't state their....

 opinion ?

 

 

 

Because they’re stating their opinion as if it’s fact.   That bothers people like me.   If you’re going to do that, at least try to have a link with some supporting facts.

 

By the way,  I think you’re somewhat new...   the poster I’m objecting to didn’t violate any rule here.   But posters who this are likely to get more pushback than those who give some supporting evidence for their views...

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

When did “Hooker is not allowed to roam” become accepted fact?   I haven’t seen that stated by Fluss, or Frank, or Ballard.   Who says this is true and what facts support this?

 

C2, and especially C2 soft zones without a pass rush, are not conducive to lurking FSs. Anyone who understands the C2 concepts knows that the back end is divided up into 2 or 3 vertical sections typically depending on what the MLB does. That in itself limits the ability of a FS to lurk (they have to stay in their zone).

 

And anyone that watched Hooker play in college knows he is was a QB eye following, ball hawking FS with range. NFL.com called him the ultimate lurker IIRC on his draft profile.... 

 

So it's not an off the wall idea to think a guy who is considered the ultimate lurker, who is not allowed to lurk, is potentially used in a way not supportive of his skill set.

 

Coaches and GMs are not above question.

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was to be expected as all of them gave contracts coming up.  I can see the reasoning for all, however it appears JB was kicked to the curb the hardest.  With Hookers injury history, and Mack and Hooker possibly commanding some $ next offseason, one can see the reasoning behind the moves.  I was somewhat surprised Hooker wasn't extended for a 5th year tho.

That said, there still could be room for them going forward if the $ make sense.

  My gut tells me this will be the last year for all three tho. But who knows.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually balk at baseless stuff, but I think this question is a good one. I would not have used the term spited, because it removes reality and adds unnecessary emotion, but those 3 players definitely see a different off-season. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

When did “Hooker is not allowed to roam” become accepted fact?   I haven’t seen that stated by Fluss, or Frank, or Ballard.   Who says this is true and what facts support this?

 

 

The fact we play mostly cover 2 and the fact that he can't leave his zone. If he can't leave his zone, he's not roaming the field. We need to play more cover 1 and I think we will with the much improved pass rush.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

C2, and especially C2 soft zones without a pass rush, are not conducive to lurking FSs. Anyone who understands the C2 concepts knows that the back end is divided up into 2 or 3 vertical sections typically depending on what the MLB does. That in itself limits the ability of a FS to lurk (they have to stay in their zone).

 

And anyone that watched Hooker play in college knows he is was a QB eye following, ball hawking FS with range. NFL.com called him the ultimate lurker IIRC on his draft profile.... 

 

So it's not an off the wall idea to think a guy who is considered the ultimate lurker, who is not allowed to lurk, is potentially used in a way not supportive of his skill set.

 

Coaches and GMs are not above question.

 

 

Kinda how it was explained from Minkah how the dolphins were using him out of position not letting him play deep But once he went to pits they let him roam like Troy P. Used to 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't be surprised if none of them are here in 2021.

 

JB, who's skill set suggest he's a career backup got $30 mil... so if that's being spited where can I sign up. Lol

 

Mack, who I like and was in my Mock, is a RB who is looking at FA and that usually makes RB's expendable UNLESS the market suggest they come back on the cheap.

 

Hooker has been OK but nothing great and if he has significant interest from other teams he will be gone. He, like Mack will probably only be resigned on the cheap.

 

This of course is only my opinion and I AM NOT STATING IT AS FACT!!!

Lol :D

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

C2, and especially C2 soft zones without a pass rush, are not conducive to lurking FSs. Anyone who understands the C2 concepts knows that the back end is divided up into 2 or 3 vertical sections typically depending on what the MLB does. That in itself limits the ability of a FS to lurk (they have to stay in their zone).

 

And anyone that watched Hooker play in college knows he is was a QB eye following, ball hawking FS with range. NFL.com called him the ultimate lurker IIRC on his draft profile.... 

 

So it's not an off the wall idea to think a guy who is considered the ultimate lurker, who is not allowed to lurk, is potentially used in a way not supportive of his skill set.

 

Coaches and GMs are not above question.

 

 

As I’ve already stated in this thread and apparently you didn’t see...   the poster didn’t break any forum rule.   But he did state opinion as fact without listing any supporting evidence.   And that gets tired.
 

We’ve had countless discussions where the issue was...   where is Hooker and why isn’t he more involved in making more plays?  Both more pass plays and more running plays.   And the argument is Hooker isn’t making more plays because we’ve  been playing him in deep center far away from the bulk if the action to protect against the deep play. 

 

Hooker gets decent PFF grades and yet people here get outraged because he’s not making enough plays. 
 

And yet here you are saying we play C2.   Is that ALL we play?   No.  And you know we don’t.  You telling me Hooker is not playing deep center?   Ever?   I hope not.   You’d be wrong.

 

I've been saying for eight years that people here are far most interested in opinion than they are in facts.  If we’re going to have a discussion about an issue it would be nice if the issue was true.    I’m funny that way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

The fact we play mostly cover 2 and the fact that he can't leave his zone. If he can't leave his zone, he's not roaming the field. We need to play more cover 1 and I think we will with the much improved pass rush.

Eberflus said last year he was going to play more man or C1, but never happened. I'm guessing he thought with the addition of Houston they'd get home more. The fact we didn't, and also given we had injuries in secondary (and Sheard), probably limited his ability to be more aggressive. Add on top of that the heavy reliance on Rock early.

 

And the fact our zone was so soft (CBs playing back), it simply wasn't a great opportunity to ball hawk.

24 minutes ago, will426 said:

Kinda how it was explained from Minkah how the dolphins were using him out of position not letting him play deep But once he went to pits they let him roam like Troy P. Used to 

Yep. Scheme fit can really impact things.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Eberflus said last year he was going to play more man or C1, but never happened. I'm guessing he thought with the addition of Houston they'd get home more. The fact we didn't, and also given we had injuries in secondary (and Sheard), probably limited his ability to be more aggressive. Add on top of that the heavy reliance on Rock early.

 

And the fact our zone was so soft (CBs playing back), it simply wasn't a great opportunity to ball hawk.

Yep. Scheme fit can really impact things.

If what you’re saying here is true....   that we wanted to play more C1, but we couldn’t because (A) not enough pass rush and (B) injuries in the secondary had us play Rock and other lesser corners...   if all if that is true, then we didn’t play more C2 because we WANTED to, we played more C2 because we HAD to.

 

And those two positions are not the same.   They’re not interchangeable.  So we were forced to do what we didn’t want to do due to circumstances, not due to the coaches misusing him as suggested by the OP.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

As I’ve already stated in this thread and apparently you didn’t see...   the poster didn’t break any forum rule.   But he did state opinion as fact without listing any supporting evidence.   And that gets tired.

I mean, anyone who watched last year knows he didn't get the opportunity to roam. That's fact.

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

We’ve had countless discussions where the issue was...   where is Hooker and why isn’t he more involved in making more plays?  Both more pass plays and more running plays.   And the argument is Hooker isn’t making more plays because we’ve  been playing him in deep center far away from the bulk if the action to protect against the deep play. 

Incorrect. He wasn't really playing deep center. Deep center would be C1. 

Here's C1

Slide1.JPG

here's C2

cover-2-defense-secondary.jpg

here's nickel (similar to pure C1 just swapping the SAM for a NB).

nickel-defense-setup.jpg

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Hooker gets decent PFF grades and yet people here get outraged because he’s not making enough plays. 

Hooker's PFF dropped from 79.1 in 2018 to 69.5 in 2019. 69.5 is not horrible, but it's not what you expect from a 1st round FS. 79.1 and up is what you expect from a first round FS.

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

And yet here you are saying we play C2.   Is that ALL we play?   No.  And you know we don’t.  You telling me Hooker is not playing deep center?   Ever?   I hope not.   You’d be wrong.

We played C2/zone the overwhelming majority of time. Nobody is saying it's 100% of the time. If I had to guess, we played zone 90+% of the time. Feels like you're arguing just to argue. Even Eberflus talked about the need to play more man last year, and it just never happened.

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

I've been saying for eight years that people here are far most interested in opinion than they are in facts.  If we’re going to have a discussion about an issue it would be nice if the issue was true.    I’m funny that way. 

LOL, it is true.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

C2, and especially C2 soft zones without a pass rush, are not conducive to lurking FSs. Anyone who understands the C2 concepts knows that the back end is divided up into 2 or 3 vertical sections typically depending on what the MLB does. That in itself limits the ability of a FS to lurk (they have to stay in their zone).

 

And anyone that watched Hooker play in college knows he is was a QB eye following, ball hawking FS with range. NFL.com called him the ultimate lurker IIRC on his draft profile.... 

 

So it's not an off the wall idea to think a guy who is considered the ultimate lurker, who is not allowed to lurk, is potentially used in a way not supportive of his skill set.

 

Coaches and GMs are not above question.

 

 

 

Well said. 

But not all fans know that unless the coaches/management say that publicly or it's read on a popular website or PFF.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

If what you’re saying here is true....   that we wanted to play more C1, but we couldn’t because (A) not enough pass rush and (B) injuries in the secondary had us play Rock and other lesser corners...   if all if that is true, then we didn’t play more C2 because we WANTED to, we played more C2 because we HAD to.

 

And those two positions are not the same.   They’re not interchangeable.  So we were forced to do what we didn’t want to do due to circumstances, not due to the coaches misusing him as suggested by the OP.

I'm presenting possible motivation for Eberflus not playing more man. I can understand early in the season, but I can't understand it late. Especially when Rock was playing at very high level past the midpoint (PFF graded him top 10ish the second half).

 

Again, your trying to use multiple narratives to defend your opinion, which is not based on fact. Fact was, we played very little man/C1. And fact is, Hooker is best in a C1 situation. So regardless of choice or need, he wasn't used in a way that promotes his skillsets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Well said. 

But not all fans know that unless the coaches/management say that publicly or it's read on a popular website or PFF.

Yep. Thank you. I realize not everyone understands schemes, but it's very obvious if you know what to look for. And given our super soft coverage most of the year, it was glaring. I don't need for someone to say it lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Emotionally I'd say Mack because he is the one of the three mentioned that I think has proved the most and is starter-worthy in this league. I totally understand the Taylor pick in how it benefits our offense and even Mack to an extent, but it probably hurts his chances at a more lucrative contract if he even gets one at all after this season.

 

Brissett got a decent contract in the form of a 'we believe in you now prove it' deal, is still making that money this year and had his chance, so the team owes him nothing. 

 

Hooker is getting a deal he deserves, meaning he certainly hasn't earned a big contract and he's maybe not even done enough to convince anyone we want him to be our starter long term. So he's going to get a chance to prove it this year. And fully agree with how the team is approaching this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the article where Eberflus talked about playing more man.

 

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/15/indianapolis-colts-matt-eberflus-defense-man-coverage/

 

Here's the article that talks about us playing more man vs KC, which was really the only game we really played a lot of man. Might have had something to do with KC having a few key OL injured, and thinking our DL could get home..... Not to mention you don't want Mahomes eating up your soft zone. Didn't hurt that Mahomes was gimpy too.

 

https://www.1075thefan.com/kevins-sports-news/colts/matt-eberflus-says-colts-will-vary-man-coverage-moving-forward/

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

As I’ve already stated in this thread and apparently you didn’t see...   the poster didn’t break any forum rule.   But he did state opinion as fact without listing any supporting evidence.   And that gets tired.
 

We’ve had countless discussions where the issue was...   where is Hooker and why isn’t he more involved in making more plays?  Both more pass plays and more running plays.   And the argument is Hooker isn’t making more plays because we’ve  been playing him in deep center far away from the bulk if the action to protect against the deep play. 

 

Hooker gets decent PFF grades and yet people here get outraged because he’s not making enough plays. 
 

And yet here you are saying we play C2.   Is that ALL we play?   No.  And you know we don’t.  You telling me Hooker is not playing deep center?   Ever?   I hope not.   You’d be wrong.

 

I've been saying for eight years that people here are far most interested in opinion than they are in facts.  If we’re going to have a discussion about an issue it would be nice if the issue was true.    I’m funny that way. 


man that was boring

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply, JB didn't earn the nod for QB#1 2020...

For the other two,  the Colts were protecting their roster values in the face of losing one or both in FA next off season.

 

Should promote outstanding performance by each player this season...  

no disrespect!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

JB gets a big contract and plays well for a backup but not starter.  Hooker cost a first round pick and he has been merely average except for one season.  Mack has for the most part exceeded value for where he was drafted and paid.  So I will go with Mack.  I think it’s a brilliant move to draft Taylor.  Let him transition for a year like Mack did and take over the starting role.  Giving starting RBs second contracts can be a huge risk by a team.  Especially ones that have a history of missing games.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

C2, and especially C2 soft zones without a pass rush, are not conducive to lurking FSs. Anyone who understands the C2 concepts knows that the back end is divided up into 2 or 3 vertical sections typically depending on what the MLB does. That in itself limits the ability of a FS to lurk (they have to stay in their zone).

 

And anyone that watched Hooker play in college knows he is was a QB eye following, ball hawking FS with range. NFL.com called him the ultimate lurker IIRC on his draft profile.... 

 

So it's not an off the wall idea to think a guy who is considered the ultimate lurker, who is not allowed to lurk, is potentially used in a way not supportive of his skill set.

 

Coaches and GMs are not above question.

 

 

Following a QB's eyes and "lurking" in college is much different than in the NFL.  Those opportunities are simply not the same.  Pass rush is without question the key to a successful C2 approach, that's a fair point.  Candidly most people don't get good looks at the FS play on game coverage as they are often off-camera, so you have to see the coaches tape to really know. So it's hard to know if people aren't throwing his way, which is an argument I hear as well.  I know this and if you played you'll agree, when my free walks off a grass field in a pristine white uniform after giving up 38 points, I have questions.  To me, he really hasn't been an impactful player and I think Ballard agrees or we would have picked up the option in a heartbeat.  He has this year to show his value, I hope he does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to go with Mack.   RB's just have a rough situation in the NFL.   Short careers that don't usually warrant a big pay contract.   Mack will be trying to find a team to sign him after this season.  

 

Brissett got paid more than he is worth, didn't perform well and will still end up signing with a team as a backup.   

 

Hooker gets to play with an improved defense and earn a good payday in the offseason.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone. Ballard has said repeatedly for years now he’s never gonna stop looking to upgrade the roster and to never feel “safe”. 
 

Jacoby and Hooker performance wise this shouldn’t surprise anyone. If any would have an argument it’s Mack. But then again he’s a RB so positionally it makes sense to have a strong 1-2 combo. We have that now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CR91 said:

Who got most spited by the colts this off-season?

 

Brissett was the starting QB and now the colts brought two QBs basically stating he's never starting in Indy again barring injury.

 

Mack coming off a breakout year with over 1100 yards and 8 tds and now he goes into a contract year sharing carries with a RB the colts traded up for.

 

Hooker has been handicapped by a defense that does not take advantage of his best asset and not only did the colts not pick up his option, but they drafted his most likely replacement.

 

Bad colts bad haha

This is an easy one.

 

Mack: Has had trouble staying healthy.  He can't handle being the workhorse alone for a whole season + playoffs.  We drafted a back to keep Mack at 100%.  He will get his carries still.  We did nothing wrong by him.

 

Hooker: Signing his option would have meant paying him a top 10 S salary this season.  He has not had the same effect on our defense as Earl Thomas, Harrison Smith, Jamal Adams, Kevin Byard, Devin Mccourty, Adrian Amos, Derwin James, Malcom Jenkins, Eddie Jackson, Tyrann Matheiu.  I am sure there are other safeties I could list here but these names came to mind.  Hooker just has not been a difference maker.  Now, he has 1 season to show that he IS a top 10 safety and then the Colts can resign him.  The Colts are just making him earn his pay...  no harm done.

 

Brissett:  We traded for him and gave him a shot as a starting QB.   He didn't look like a guy that could lead us to a Superbowl and that is the goal right?  So we brought in Rivers for a year AND kept Brissett on the payroll.  He is on the roster to get another shot if Rivers (almost 40 years old) gets hurt.  He is being paid like a starting QB.... we did no wrong by him either.

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

Here's the article where Eberflus talked about playing more man.

 

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/15/indianapolis-colts-matt-eberflus-defense-man-coverage/

 

Here's the article that talks about us playing more man vs KC, which was really the only game we really played a lot of man. Might have had something to do with KC having a few key OL injured, and thinking our DL could get home..... Not to mention you don't want Mahomes eating up your soft zone. Didn't hurt that Mahomes was gimpy too.

 

https://www.1075thefan.com/kevins-sports-news/colts/matt-eberflus-says-colts-will-vary-man-coverage-moving-forward/


Interestingly...Hooker was out for that game against KC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

The fact we play mostly cover 2 and the fact that he can't leave his zone. If he can't leave his zone, he's not roaming the field. We need to play more cover 1 and I think we will with the much improved pass rush.

 

How did Bethea flourish in the same Cover 2 and still use his instincts to close in and make several INTs? 2006, 2007, 2009 - 3 straight years when Colts played Brady (out in 2008), Bethea had key INTs against him in regular season games plus playoff game vs Ravens too in his rookie year. Brady is not an easy guy to pick off.

 

Just saying. :dunno:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

How did Bethea flourish in the same Cover 2 and still use his instincts to close in and make several INTs? 2006, 2007, 2009 - 3 straight years when Colts played Brady (out in 2008), Bethea had key INTs against him in regular season games plus playoff game vs Ravens too in his rookie year. Brady is not an easy guy to pick off.

 

Just saying. :dunno:


Because Bethea was the man. I don’t know if the Colts have a complete S like that (who can come up and make the play AND track deep) on the roster. 

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

Interestingly...Hooker was out for that game against KC

Is absence was definitely felt to. Knew it was a bad sogn qhen he was ruled out, we definitely needed him in that game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, shastamasta said:


Because Bethea was the man. I don’t know if the Colts have a complete S like that (who can come up and make the play AND track deep) on the roster. 

 

I felt it was a mistake to let him walk, obviously $$$ factors played, but when we had Landry on the roster... eesh.

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...