Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

DLine very unColt like Today


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Looked dominant.  
 

Jags dropped 30 on Tennessee.  Maybe they are just pretty good up front.  
 

I don’t recall seeing our Dline looking like that today.  

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.


yup.  Secondary looked good today.  Dline is the key to this d.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

Buckner played like we pay him to do today that is for sure :thmup:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had no film on the Jags and they had a new Offensive coordinator with new personnel in diff spots. Harder to prepare. I bet we play game 2 against Jax much better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't try to connect too many dots.

 

MN OL is not good. We played more man today, giving the DL more time to get home. It looked like we stunted/blitzed a bit more too.

 

As far as the TN/Jax game, TN hasn't looked that great. They've needed late game heroics and FGs to win both games. Is Jax as bad as we thought, probably not. But you shouldn't be all that surprised that Minshew passed for 300 against them. Their pass D wasn't good last year, and it's not good this year. Didn't watch the game, but I'd bet they played a lot soft zone like we did, and Minshew simply carved them up short to intermediate like he did us.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Buckner got settled in, Tyquan broke through for a sack. The D-Line was definitely more effective this game, and that caused Cousins to do worse as well and throw 3 INT's. Like everyone says, a great D-Line makes it easier on the secondary.

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

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

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

Yeah but the main factor in this game is the dline was dominant and gave up nothing on the ground and pressured the QB.  Now MN might be crap, but today was impressive.

 

 

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

And good DBs, or DBs playing man, can make it easier on a DL. All worked together today IMO. That, and a bad OL.

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

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

Yeah but the main factor in this game is the dline was dominant and gave up nothing on the ground and pressured the QB.  Now MN might be crap, but today was impressive.

Good stats are always fun. Ws are always fun.

 

Point is, the DL just didn't get better from last week to this week. We sacked both Minshew and Cousins 3 times each. We actually had a bit more TFLs last week. We held Jax to 71 RB rushing yards, and held MN to 80. Not a lot of difference in those aspects. The difference is we INT'd Cousins 3 times and Minshew 0 times. That, and we didn't turn the ball over as much. Why didn't we INT Minshew? Because he played soft and gave him a ton of cushion. He ate us up. We didn't play near as far off the OL this week if my eyes didn't deceive me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

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

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

With the exception of the upcoming games against the Jets, Bengals and Bears, we are going to find out how good the defence is. No where to hide

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

See the post above contrasting DL stats from this week vs last week. We actually were a tad better last week. Difference IMO was scheme adjustment, and situational play calling (decreasing the softness in our zone from last week).

What dline stats are you referring to?  Like tackles?  Tackles are basically unimportant statistically for linemen.  DTs can have zero tackles and completely dominate a football game.  They looked good today and pedestrian last week.

 

now it appears that MN might totally suck but who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

With the exception of the upcoming games against the Jets, Bengals and Bears, we are going to find out how good the defence is. No where to hide

My only hope is that Flus got tired of hearing about his Charmin soft zone. Looked to me that our DBs weren't near as deep and we played more man today. We really only did that vs KC last year. KC was crippled, but still was effective. It was effective today too, so hope he continues to be more aggressive. 

 

Not really worried about TN, NYJ, or Chicago, but every other team will have success vs our typical zone. Our run D was good last year, and is good this year. Just need to keep our foot on the pedal vs the pass IMO.

 

And you better be worried about Burrow lol. He looked very sharp in his passes vs the Browns, and will only get better. The Bengals overall I'm not to worried about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

They def played better today. I still have questions as this Vikings offense is putrid. LBs were better today also. 

The cover two depends on line play.  Pressure and DTs taking up blocks.  They make LBs look like stars when they do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nickster said:

What dline stats are you referring to?  Like tackles?  Tackles are basically unimportant statistically for linemen.  DTs can have zero tackles and completely dominate a football game.  They looked good today and pedestrian last week.

 

now it appears that MN might totally suck but who knows.

Rushing yards, sacks, TFLs. I referred you to the other post where I listed them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the Jags nearly beat Tennessee this week, I'm starting to wonder if they are actually pretty solid. 
 

Even at that, we should of had that game in the bag. If we kick that FG, and go up 10-0. IMO, we blow them out. We can run it more; and play differently. 
 

The Vikings put up 34 points on GB. I'm very impressed with our performance on defense W/O our #1 corner!!! 
 

wait until Turay comes back!! He will compliment our line perfectly, IMO. We are just missing a speed rusher. 
 

We can potentially make a run here with the next 4-5 games very winnable!!

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

I thought you were actually talking  about Defensive lineman stats.  

Adv stats won't be out till tomorrow that will include QBHs, KDs, Pressures, etc.. 

Don't act like sacks and TFLs aren't regarded as standard DL metircs.

I expect overall pressures to be up a little given MN's OL is worse than Jax, and Cousins actually threw more than Minshew. I expect the overall % relative to attempts to be pretty similar though, just like the basic stats though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

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

Adv stats won't be out till tomorrow that will include QBHs, KDs, Pressures, etc.. 

Don't act like sacks and TFLs aren't regarded as standard DL metircs.

I expect overall pressures to be up a little given MN's OL is worse than Jax, and Cousins actually threw more than Minshew. I expect the overall % relative to attempts to be pretty similar though, just like the basic stats though.

And no sacks and tfls are not the standard for DTs.

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

Looked dominant.  
 

Jags dropped 30 on Tennessee.  Maybe they are just pretty good up front.  
 

I don’t recall seeing our Dline looking like that today.  

if the DL plays well enough like today the secondary will be fine

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

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

 

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

And no sacks and tfls are not the standard for DTs.

 

The conversation started about general DL as you well know, not DT. Please limit your usual spin. You're trying to reduce applicable data points because your not confident in original argument.

 

If you want to split hairs, sacks/pressure/KDs/QBHs are indeed important metrics for 3Ts. NTs on the other hand are different, and need to be viewed apart from typical stats. Case in point, vs the pass, Buckner's job is absolutely to get to the passer. Against the run it's to stop the run, or keep the guard off the LB. These are basic 4-3 concepts you should know.

 

 

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

My only hope is that Flus got tired of hearing about his Charmin soft zone. Looked to me that our DBs weren't near as deep and we played more man today. We really only did that vs KC last year. KC was crippled, but still was effective. It was effective today too, so hope he continues to be more aggressive. 

 

Not really worried about TN, NYJ, or Chicago, but every other team will have success vs our typical zone. Our run D was good last year, and is good this year. Just need to keep our foot on the pedal vs the pass IMO.

 

And you better be worried about Burrow lol. He looked very sharp in his passes vs the Browns, and will only get better. The Bengals overall I'm not to worried about. 

We shall c if they have the ability to play man against some of the more athletic offences. Sometimes I think that is why he chooses heavy zone against atheltic offences.  I dont think he trusts the back end.

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

We shall c if they have the ability to play man against some of the more athletic offences. Sometimes I think that is why he chooses heavy zone against atheltic offences.  I dont think he trusts the back end.

We played more man vs KC last year. Yes Mahomes was gimpy, but they still had athletic/fast guys flying around. Hardman is a 4.33 bolt of lighting, Pringle a 4.4s guy. And then you have Kelce and we all know him. I think it Reich and Flus knew that Mahomes would pick them apart if they didn't go more man.

 

I do agree that they probably lack a bit of trust, but I also know they simply like the bend but don't break philosophy. I'll make this prediction, a lot of QBs on our schedule will pick us apart if stay zone. Jackson would kill us if we give a bunch of cushion off the LOS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

What is a Colts performance?  What do we really know about this team so far?  I need more games........and cowbell.

We won't know how our O is until Chicago. Won't know what our D is until we play the Browns and Lions. 

 

Won't know if we can play a complete game until the Ravens. 

 

:thmup:

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

 

 

The conversation started about general DL as you well know, not DT. Please limit your usual spin. You're trying to reduce applicable data points because your not confident in original argument.

 

If you want to split hairs, sacks/pressure/KDs/QBHs are indeed important metrics for 3Ts. NTs on the other hand are different, and need to be viewed apart from typical stats. Case in point, vs the pass, Buckner's job is absolutely to get to the passer. Against the run it's to stop the run, or keep the guard off the LB. These are basic 4-3 concepts you should know.

 

 

Incorrect.  The two quotes you quoted from me says what is looked for 4 man fronts.  It is not necessary for  3Ts to get tackles and sacks.   It’s not a bad thing, but their job is to penetrate and take up blocks primarily. Other guys then clean up the trash usually.  They usually try to push rather than rip or swim in the rush.  Getting skinny in the pass rush Too ofIn in manageable downs will often cause problems if their are giant lanes to run through have problems especially with mobile QBs.

 

there is the occasional guy like Donald and Sap that is really able to do it all, and yeah that’s awesome, but it’s not the primary job.

 


 

and I said edge guys are different.  

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

No team can play man in this league without very good line play.

 

 I mean there was neon deon and Revis but they were two of the best to ever play any position.

Yeah but u never know till u try..I’d rather get burned in man than allowing free catches in Zone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good example of what I am talking about with DT "stats".

 

 

1. Aaron Donald, Los Angeles Rams

The best defensive lineman in the NFL, and the best defensive player on most Sundays. Donald’s sacks declined from 20.5 to 12.5 and his total pressures from 113 to 80, but he still left a trail of frustrated offensive linemen. At 6'1" and 280 pounds, Donald has an unrivaled combination of technique, strength and quickness to the pocket. He’s an every-gap defender and could probably put up double-digit sacks as a pure end. Donald also led the league in tackles for a loss for the second straight season.

 

All I'm trying to point out here is that the pressure and sacks stat being down did not necessarly mean he was worse.  HE is perhaps the best evrer to play the poistion.   The TFL stat you are referring to is obviously a big number, but it doesn't mean this guy isn't still dominationg a game in which he records no sacks or tackles.  He's probably still dominating in this case.

 

3. Kenny Clark, Green Bay Packers

At 6'3" and 314 pounds, Clark can win everywhere from nose tackle to five-tech end, but he’s especially effective between the guard and tackle as a penetrating, pass-rushing force (IE. 3 Tech). Clark, who has never put up more than six sacks in a season, is an example of why that statistic doesn’t always mean as much as we think. Last season, including the playoffs, no interior defensive lineman had more quarterback hurries than Clark’s 58, and only Aaron Donald had more total pressures than Clark’s 69. Factor in his 45 run stops, and you’ve got one of the most complete players at hi

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

I wouldn't try to connect too many dots.

 

MN OL is not good. We played more man today, giving the DL more time to get home. It looked like we stunted/blitzed a bit more too.

 

 

^^^This. We played man more and stunted/blitzed a bit more as well. Eberflus' change in schemes to mix it up (finally someone talked to him about it :)) had the biggest impact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nickster said:

Sacks are important for edge guys.  Interior linemen could go without sacks or tackles and b utterly dominant.

 

its not bad for DL to get sacks and tfl but it’s not essential.  Taking up blocks is the key.  I think we had the same number of sacks the first Two weeks, but this week they dominated.  Last week they did not.  They actually weren’t bad on closer reflection but they weren’t dominant,

 

In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.

 

If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.  

 

Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.  

 

None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.

 

So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.

 

If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.  

 

Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.  

 

None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.

 

So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  

The bolded part is what I was trying to say.  and I shold have said not essential for DT's to get sacks or tackles necessarily.  Of course you need the DL to get your pressure if possible.

 

 A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't employ the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.

 

It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, will426 said:

Yeah but u never know till u try..I’d rather get burned in man than allowing free catches in Zone

Oh I can't stand our Cover 2.  We play so far off on it that it seems to negate the hook to flat zone that is supposed to be taken care of in it.

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

The bolded part is what I was trying to say.

 

 A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't employ the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.

 

It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.

 

I don't disagree that even if he didn't have the 1.5 sacks he still would've had a nice game... that said, I have a hard time hearing an argument saying that QB hits, TFL, sacks by the DL are not important.  Yes, they can help the LBs by eating up blockers even if they don't record sacks, but sacks and TFLs are huge for momentum in games and also assist in altering the play of the QB (usually in a negative way -- e.g., the reason the Giants beat Brady in the SB two times, IMO, is because they were able to hit Brady consistently with their front 4, therefore taking away his ability to find easy check downs and also making him a less accurate passer due to obvious frustration/being flustered).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CurBeatElite said:

 

I don't disagree that even if he didn't have the 1.5 sacks he still would've had a nice game... that said, I have a hard time hearing an argument saying that QB hits, TFL, sacks by the DL are not important.  Yes, they can help the LBs by eating up blockers even if they don't record sacks, but sacks and TFLs are huge for momentum in games and also assist in altering the play of the QB (usually in a negative way -- e.g., the reason the Giants beat Brady in the SB two times, IMO, is because they were able to hit Brady consistently with their front 4, therefore taking away his ability to find easy check downs and also making him a less accurate passer due to obvious frustration/being flustered).

I don't mean they are not important, just that they aren't necessarily essential.  

 

The conversation came up in that I thought the Line looked dominant today, and didn't last week.  They weren't as bad last week as I emotionally first thought, but I still think they were much better.  Might be because MN might totally suck.  Maybe not.

 

Did you think they looked better this week or did it look similar to you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't mean they are not important, just that they aren't necessarily essential.  

 

The conversation came up in that I thought the Line looked dominant today, and didn't last week.  They weren't as bad last week as I emotionally first thought, but I still think they were much better.  Might be because MN might totally suck.  Maybe not.

 

Did you think they looked better this week or did it look similar to you?

 

I think pretty much the whole team/game plan looked better yesterday than in week 1.  We won the turnover battle, we dominated the time of possession (we won it against Jax, but we had the ball >5 minutes longer yesterday than week 1).  

 

I don't think our DL looked that bad against Jax, I think we lost that game because we left points on the board (missed FG plus turning it over on down on the Jax 3) and because we turned the ball over in inopportune situations.  Hard to win when the O gives the ball away in the situations we did.  We limited the Jags to 241 total yards of O, 150 passing and 91 rushing - so statistically, yardage wish anyway our D wasn't bad in week 1.  However, we played a soft zone and the Jags picked it apart... we also made some pretty costly and untimely penalties week 1 (e.g., Moore's horsecollar tackle) as well.  The defensive play calling seemed to be more aggressive yesterday, and overall I think the DL looked better, though I don't think week 1's loss was due to poor DL play as much as it was to poor secondary play, a less than stellar game plan and  untimely turnovers and penalties.  I think if Rivers avoided INTs (both of which the Jags scored off) and if we didn't leave 10 points out there, we would've been pretty happy with the teams' overall play week 1 as well.

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We will sweep the Texans and split with Texans so 10-6 is the probability. Titans are overrated, they won't beat us here.
    • If I was an owner I wouldn't hang division banners. People mock us for hanging a Final 4 banner in 2014 but yet think hanging a division banner (hypothetically for going 8-8) is ok? Think about how silly that sounds. I would rather be in the AFC Title Game than win my division, that is common sense.
    • We will see how it plays out. Cam is washed IMO and injury prone. He has the greatest coach ever and he will be lucky to go 9-7.
    • I am not worried about Buffalo. Just contain their QB and you're good. Baltimore much harder but we have a shot there if our run D plays tough. KC and their receivers seems like the toughest. I think a great run D is key on all these games incl. TN.  We have to make all these teams one dimensional. The only one with too many skills players to stop is KC.  The only way to beat them is being able to score more points than we have all season. Let's hope our O-Line keeps offering up the extra time in the pocket. 
    • We know... we are all here because we love the game and we love the colts, can you please stop acting like the forum shrink - it's nauseating lol. We as fans are allowed to comment what we want on this forum, its not always going to be rainbows and daisies, deal with it. We all want to see the colts win and when we s*** the bed on a sunday afternoon we are allowed to have a vent and discuss where we need improving etc even if that does occasionally come with some over reaction sprinkled in. You probably thought this was a random comment to quote but its a build up of your posting as a whole and I chose to reply to this one lol.   Anywayyy, Phil did have a good game against the Bengals no doubt, but he has been very average or perhaps below average for the most part. I hope he can hang with some of the better teams we have coming up on our schedule but I do have my doubts that we will see more of the bengals type play from him very often.         
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...