Overrated d

[krunk 4,005]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Because the Browns won the game on two long runs on the game deciding drive...

And is that the first time we've seen something like that?  Every game isn't going to work out to where you're dominant against every team.   Sometimes you'll give up more than you expected.  I'm not worried about them unless they start a downhill pattern moving forward.  I still think we are definitely one of the best units in the league.  It's very hard to remain #1 all year long.   I'd have no problem being in the playoffs with this unit .

[GoColts8818 4,287]

Just now, krunk said:

And is that the first time we've seen something like that?  Every game isn't going to work out to where you're dominant against every team.   Sometimes it you'll give up more than you expected.  I'm not worried about them unless they start a downhill pattern moving forward.  I still think we are definitely one of the best units in the league.  It's very hard to remain #1 all year long.   I'd have no problem being in the playoffs with this unit .

You can’t talk about what a great job they did against someone’s running game when they literally seal their win with two big runs...

[krunk 4,005]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You can’t talk about what a great job they did against someone’s running game when they literally seal their win with two big runs...

I most certainly can.  Rivers put us in that position and let's be real you're not going to play every down 100 percent perfect.   If I shut you down the entire game and you get two decent runs at the end does that mean you dominated me?  I can't even count how many times Peyton and our explosive offense couldn't close the deal in certain games. 

[GoColts8818 4,287]

Just now, krunk said:

I most certainly can.  Rivers put us in that position and let's be real you're not going to play every down 100 percent perfect.   If I shut you down the entire game and you get two decent runs at the end does that mean you dominated me?  

And I’ve said Rivers deserves all the heat he’s getting.  I am not going to defend Rivers or try to pretend like he’s not a problem.  He is.  
 

Despite that defense had a chance to get the ball back and give him one more chance and they didn’t do it.  When the Browns needed their running game to come through they did.  When the Colts needed a stop from their defense they didn’t get it.  Crunch time matters a lot.  Rivers failed and so did the Colts D at the end after they put them in a big hole in the first half by reverting to the soft zone defense that gets picked apart.

[EastStreet 8,595]

14 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Oh I agree.  But do you have any confidence that THIS offense can go win a game if they have to?  Cause I do not.

I think we are more capable of winning with O with Rivers, than JB. If you want just a game manager, JB. If you want someone capable of winning, Rivers. Rivers can lose too. But JB would not have won us this game. We'd have like tried to force the run with JB, Cleveland would have totally sold out, and we likely wouldn't have scored or moved the ball much at all. 

[bluebombers87 560]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

I most certainly can.  Rivers put us in that position and let's be real you're not going to play every down 100 percent perfect.   If I shut you down the entire game and you get two decent runs at the end does that mean you dominated me?  

To be fair, the defense put Rivers in the position to try and bring us back with his arm.

[GoColts8818 4,287]

Just now, bluebombers87 said:

To be fair, the defense put Rivers in the position to try and bring us back with his arm.

Thank you, that’s been my point.  The defense isn’t blameless.  Rivers sure as heck isn’t blame less.  Both made costly mistakes.  Did the defense at least make some plays which is more than I can say for Rivers?  Yes.  However, that doesn’t mean their mistakes didn’t happen either.  

[krunk 4,005]

1 minute ago, bluebombers87 said:

To be fair, the defense put Rivers in the position to try and bring us back with his arm.

How many TDs did Rivers throw for the entire game?

[bluebombers87 560]

Just now, krunk said:

How many TDs did Rivers throw for the entire game?

How is this question relevant to my statement?

[AZColt11 1,266]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You can’t talk about what a great job they did against someone’s running game when they literally seal their win with two big runs...

They weren't "great" but they were more than adequate.  33 runs for 124 yds = 3.8 ypc.  Against the #1 rushing offense who was averaging over 200 ypg coming in, and without one of your best players on D?  It was OK.  Not shutdown, but it was fine.  It wasn't the reason they lost.

[bluebombers87 560]

Just now, AZColt11 said:

They weren't "great" but they were more than adequate.  33 runs for 124 yds = 3.8 ypc.  Against the #1 rushing offense who was averaging over 200 ypg coming in, and without one of your best players on D?  It was OK.  Not shutdown, but it was fine.  It wasn't the reason they lost.

But again, it didn’t help.

[GoColts8818 4,287]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

How many TDs did Rivers throw for the entire game?

What on earth does that have to do with this defense?  There are plenty of bash on Rivers threads (as there should be) this thread is about the defense.

[AZColt11 1,266]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I think we are more capable of winning with O with Rivers, than JB. If you want just a game manager, JB. If you want someone capable of winning, Rivers. Rivers can lose too. But JB would not have won us this game. We'd have like tried to force the run with JB, Cleveland would have totally sold out, and we likely wouldn't have scored or moved the ball much at all. 

I would agree with you on the Jacoby part.  The problem with Rivers is he isn't what he used to be.  He still has the mental part of the game, but his body isn't capable of making the throws he used to make, and in his mind he still thinks he can.  It isn't working.  He has more INT's than he does TD's so far.  So IMHO NEITHER of those guys is what we need.  May as well give the rook a shot at this point.  Can he really be much worse?  And what if he's better?

[Dhub63 0]

Indy media ALWAYS over hypes the Colts. This year it's the defense. Is the defense better than last year? Yes. Is it elite? Not even close. The def line is good not great.
Same for the line backers. Db's are fair, not good nor great. The sad part is the defense is far superior than the offense. Rivers is just a bad investment.

[GoColts8818 4,287]

1 minute ago, AZColt11 said:

They weren't "great" but they were more than adequate.  33 runs for 124 yds = 3.8 ypc.  Against the #1 rushing offense who was averaging over 200 ypg coming in, and without one of your best players on D?  It was OK.  Not shutdown, but it was fine.  It wasn't the reason they lost.

Did the Browns end the game by getting two long runs on the drive that sealed their win?  If so yes it is.  Is it the only reason the Colts lost?  No and that’s been part of my point.  There was more than one reason the Colts lost.  Blaming one man or one unit and using that to excuse mistakes from your other unit isn’t honestly looking at things.  Like I said before at the end of the game when the Browns need their running game it came through for them.  When the Colts need their defense to get a stop they didn’t.  
 

Does that mean the mistakes by Rivers and company didn’t happen?  Of course not.  However, failing to get to a stop the entire first half of the game and at the end of the game ended up being just as costly.

[markabrown96 62]

Coverage was good most of the game. The browns receivers were just making great plays

[GoColts8818 4,287]

1 minute ago, markabrown96 said:

Coverage was good most of the game. The browns receivers were just making great plays

I’ll agree that the browns receivers did make some really great catches in the first half but there were several throws where Baker just picked their zone apart.  

[AZColt11 1,266]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

Did the Browns end the game by getting two long runs on the drive that sealed their win?  If so yes it is.  Is it the only reason the Colts lost?  No and that’s been part of my point.  There was more than one reason the Colts lost.  Blaming one man or one unit and using that to excuse mistakes from your other unit isn’t honestly looking at things.  Like I said before at the end of the game when the Browns need their running game it came through for them.  When the Colts need their defense to get a stop they didn’t.  
 

Does that mean the mistakes by Rivers and company didn’t happen?  Of course not.  However, failing to get to a stop the entire first half of the game and at the end of the game ended up being just as costly.

OK, fair point.  If you want to look at it that way then I guess the run D lost us the game then?  Since that was the last competitive part of the game?

 

I guess I'm looking at the entirety of it.  I'm also looking at the fact they were likely GASSED since the Browns ran 20 more plays than the offense.

 

The funny part is even had the D gotten the stop there I have ZERO faith the offense would've done anything with it.  Yes, there are many reasons this team lost today, but IMHO the biggest part of the blame goes to the offense.  

[bluebombers87 560]

3 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

OK, fair point.  If you want to look at it that way then I guess the run D lost us the game then?  Since that was the last competitive part of the game?

 

I guess I'm looking at the entirety of it.  I'm also looking at the fact they were likely GASSED since the Browns ran 20 more plays than the offense.

 

The funny part is even had the D gotten the stop there I have ZERO faith the offense would've done anything with it.  Yes, there are many reasons this team lost today, but IMHO the biggest part of the blame goes to the offense.  

This is all true. 
 

Although I’d say they had a slight chance at the end had they the opportunity. I think if they’d gotten the touchdown first it actually would’ve helped rally the team.

[AZColt11 1,266]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I’ll agree that the browns receivers did make some really great catches in the first half but there were several throws where Baker just picked their zone apart.  

Yeah too much room at times.  But I think a lot of that is scheme.  We don't blitz much at all and we just play that soft zone.  I hate it.  I would love to see us run an aggressive scheme like Pitt. does.  I think we now have the "horses" to pull it off.  Instead, we sag back, give you 10-15 yards at a time, and hope you make a mistake.  Try to run it on us and we'll stop you most of the time.  But passing?  We're giving it up way too easy and not all of it is just poor coverage.  A LOT of what I'm seeing is scheme issues.  That is frustrating.

[GoColts8818 4,287]

Just now, AZColt11 said:OK, fair point.  If you want to look at it that way then I guess the run D lost us the game then?  Since that was the last competitive part of the game?

that was the end of the game where the browns sealed the win.  I wouldn’t call that the least competitive part of the game.  Would I have counted on Rivers to come back had they gotten the stop there?  No, I think he would have thrown another pick but he didn’t even get the chance.  So saying hey looking at what great job the defense did against the run when the Browns sealed the win with two long runs when you could have stopped them and at least given the offense a chance is kinda over looking the two most important running plays of the game.  

Just now, AZColt11 said:

I guess I'm looking at the entirety of it.  I'm also looking at the fact they were likely GASSED since the Browns ran 20 more plays than the offense.

and whose fault is that since the defense couldn’t get off the field in the first half?  The Colts d put themselves in that position in the first half when the play count and top was lopsided there and the offense scored on two of their three positions in that half.  

Just now, AZColt11 said:

 

The funny part is even had the D gotten the stop there I have ZERO faith the offense would've done anything with it.  Yes, there are many reasons this team lost today, but IMHO the biggest part of the blame goes to the offense.  

I don’t disagree that the offense would have still failed in the end.  I think Rivers would have thrown another pick. Still they didn’t get a chance and that’s a problem and what’s the point to having a great defense if they dont get the ball back to the offense to give them a chance on a 3rd and 9 when you know the Browns are going to run?

 

i haven’t and won’t say the defense was the main reason the Colts lost today.  I agree the offense was very bad today and have said so in those threads.  Yet, this thread isn’t about the offense or even assigning blame for why the Colts lost.  It’s about the defense.  Do I think they were exposed?  No, not in the way the op was making it sound like they are awful.  They aren’t.  However, they were exposed as having some real holes especially when they go to the soft zone defense against a good QB.  The Browns picked it apart just like the Jags did.  When the Colts got aggressive on defense they were very good for the most part.  I hope they play that way the rest of the year but the coaching staff seems to like going back to that soft zone.  If that happens against some of the QBs they have coming up this year this defense isn’t gong to be good.  

[GoColts8818 4,287]

10 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Yeah too much room at times.  But I think a lot of that is scheme.  We don't blitz much at all and we just play that soft zone.  I hate it.  I would love to see us run an aggressive scheme like Pitt. does.  I think we now have the "horses" to pull it off.  Instead, we sag back, give you 10-15 yards at a time, and hope you make a mistake.  Try to run it on us and we'll stop you most of the time.  But passing?  We're giving it up way too easy and not all of it is just poor coverage.  A LOT of what I'm seeing is scheme issues.  That is frustrating.

That’s the thing they did that in the second half and the Vikings game or even the KC game last year and the defense was great.  That’s when the defense is at their best.  So they have it in them yet the coaches keep going back to that shell defense that plays bend don’t break.

[AZColt11 1,266]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

that was the end of the game where the browns sealed the win.  I wouldn’t call that the least competitive part of the game.  Would I have counted on Rivers to come back had they gotten the stop there?  No, I think he would have thrown another pick but he didn’t even get the chance.  So saying hey looking at what great job the defense did against the run when the Browns sealed the win with two long runs when you could have stopped them and at least given the offense a chance is kinda over looking the two most important running plays of the game.  

and whose fault is that since the defense couldn’t get off the field in the first half?  The Colts d put themselves in that position in the first half when the play count and top was lopsided there and the offense scored on two of their three positions in that half.  

I don’t disagree that the offense would have still failed in the end.  I think Rivers would have thrown another pick. Still they didn’t get a chance and that’s a problem and what’s the point to having a great defense if they dont get the ball back to the offense to give them a chance on a 3rd and 9 when you know the Browns are going to run?

 

i haven’t and won’t say the defense was the main reason the Colts lost today.  I agree the offense was very bad today and have said so in those threads.  Yet, this thread isn’t about the offense or even assigning blame for why the Colts lost.  It’s about the defense.  Do I think they were exposed?  No, not in the way the op was making it sound like they are awful.  They aren’t.  However, they were exposed as having some real holes especially when they go to the soft zone defense against a good QB.  The Browns picked it apart just like the Jags did.  When the Colts got aggressive on defense they were very good for the most part.  I hope they play that way the rest of the year but the coaching staff seems to like going back to that soft zone.  If that happens against some of the QBs they have coming up this year this defense isn’t gong to be good.  

Fair enough.  I think in a round about way we're thinking the same things, just saying it in different ways.  For the record though, I'm not saying the run defense was great.  It was OK.  It was good enough to win save the last drive.  That was disappointing.  Then again, you can't be flawless.  You have to have some help in there somewhere.  And I don't think the scheme/playcalling on D is doing them any favors as you said.  I too think this D is better when they are aggressive.  They have the studs to be that way now yet we are still running it like the "old" Colts D, which I think is a mistake.

[GoColts8818 4,287]

Just now, AZColt11 said:

Fair enough.  I think in a round about way we're thinking the same things, just saying it in different ways.  For the record though, I'm not saying the run defense was great.  It was OK.  It was good enough to win save the last drive.  That was disappointing.  Then again, you can't be flawless.  You have to have some help in there somewhere.  And I don't think the scheme/playcalling on D is doing them any favors as you said.  I too think this D is better when they are aggressive.  They have the studs to be that way now yet we are still running it like the "old" Colts D, which I think is a mistake.

Yeah, and in fairness you weren’t the one taking about how great they played against the run.  I was just objecting to that given what happened at the end of the game.  Like you said I think we mostly agree on that.  I do think defense played well in the second half minus that last drive.  It’s just so frustrating that they didn’t come out that way and went back to the zone defense that’s only been destroyed when they use it.

[AZColt11 1,266]

40 minutes ago, krunk said:

And is that the first time we've seen something like that?  Every game isn't going to work out to where you're dominant against every team.   Sometimes you'll give up more than you expected.  I'm not worried about them unless they start a downhill pattern moving forward.  I still think we are definitely one of the best units in the league.  It's very hard to remain #1 all year long.   I'd have no problem being in the playoffs with this unit .

Exactly.  Were they flawless?  Of course not.  They gave up 20 points in the first half and 23 for the game.  I was hoping for a shutout.  But the reality is they just played one of the best scoring offenses in the NFL and held them considerably under their average coming in (31 ppg).  And their players get paid too.  This defense I could roll with.  I would like to see them more aggressive though.  Imagine the turnovers they could get if they were?

[AZColt11 1,266]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah, and in fairness you weren’t the one taking about how great they played against the run.  I was just objecting to that given what happened at the end of the game.  Like you said I think we mostly agree on that.  I do think defense played well in the second half minus that last drive.  It’s just so frustrating that they didn’t come out that way and went back to the zone defense that’s only been destroyed when they use it.

TOTALLY agreed.

[Nickster 777]

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Let’s not forget the first half the defense gave up long drives for scores on all three drives.  I’ll say the defense adjusted and played much better in the second half but still at the end of the game even with the mistakes from Rivers, which can’t be over looked but that’s not the subject of this thread, the defense gave up two back breaking runs including one on 3rd and long when you knew the run was coming.  The defense can not be given a pass.  They made some costly mistakes today as well.

They gave up 23 points and got TOS.  Could have had more in 1st half.  They I did fine.

[EastStreet 8,595]

37 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

I would agree with you on the Jacoby part.  The problem with Rivers is he isn't what he used to be.  He still has the mental part of the game, but his body isn't capable of making the throws he used to make, and in his mind he still thinks he can.  It isn't working.  He has more INT's than he does TD's so far.  So IMHO NEITHER of those guys is what we need.  May as well give the rook a shot at this point.  Can he really be much worse?  And what if he's better?

What exactly about Rivers isn't what it used to be? He has the highest completion % he's ever had. All of his core stats (AVG, ANYA, etc.) are within his career range. His passer rating and QBR are within range as well. He's had up and down years with INTs and 15 or more around 6ish years IIRC. The only thing out of the norm are yards and TDs, which is understandable given the low attempts he's averaging. He's 7th best in deep throw completion %, so still capable of hitting the long ones. IDK, seems like the same guy, and we're just using him different. 

 

As far as Eason is concerned... I'd ride Rivers until we're out of the playoff the race, then let Eason play without pressure. At the end of the day, we're 3-2, and just lost to a good 4-1 team with a top 5 OL, top 5 rush O, top 5 rush D, with the league leader in sacks. Not hitting the panic or eject button yet.

[AZColt11 1,266]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

What exactly about Rivers isn't what it used to be? He has the highest completion % he's ever had. All of his core stats (AVG, ANYA, etc.) are within his career range. His passer rating and QBR are within range as well. He's had up and down years with INTs and 15 or more around 6ish years IIRC. The only thing out of the norm are yards and TDs, which is understandable given the low attempts he's averaging. He's 7th best in deep throw completion %, so still capable of hitting the long ones. IDK, seems like the same guy, and we're just using him different. 

 

As far as Eason is concerned... I'd ride Rivers until we're out of the playoff the race, then let Eason play without pressure. At the end of the day, we're 3-2, and just lost to a good 4-1 team with a top 5 OL, top 5 rush O, top 5 rush D, with the league leader in sacks. Not hitting the panic or eject button yet.

I get it.  But they're aren't scoring points East.  IDK if it's all Rivers, not saying it is.  Lord knows the play-calling is frustrating at times and the run blocking hasn't been what we saw last year.  But I don't see the arm strength on the throws.  They hover.  To me, it's like he's trying to fit passes in where in years past he may have been able to.  Now, they can't get there in time.  It's COSTLY.  So what if you can drive it 60 yards if you throw the INT or have to settle for the FG so many times?  I'm not saying Rivers can't be a game-manager.  But didn't we just have that with Brissett?  I was hoping for better, especially for $25M.  So now we're spending over $40M on QB's that can't DRIVE us to wins (like we used to have).  Make no mistake, I was happy we signed Rivers.  But I was told his problems were he didn't have a good OL.  He had no time to throw.  He has and it hasn't made much of a difference.  Chalk some of it up to injuries, I understand that.  But why does Hilton look like a GOD with Andrew Luck, but with Jacoby or Rivers he's nearly invisible at times?  Something doesn't add up.  And the TD-INT ratio is a thing.

 

You're probably right about Eason.  Probably too early for him at this point.  The team is still above .500.  They have two VERY winnable games coming up in Cincy and Detroit.  Then the bye to get healthy and get Turay back in the fold.  But if they hit that point, we may as well send the rook in there because I can't see any way they keep Jacoby at his current salary and I would think Rivers would want to walk away as well.  And at what point does your offense keep scoring in the teens and you keep expecting wins?  At what point do you stir the pot and try something else before you're out of the running.  I guess that's a good question for Ballard.

[Chloe6124 9,032]

If rivers can’t even be a good game manager might as well go back to Jacoby who actually doesn’t make mistakes. There is no way we are going to beat Baltimore or GB. We can’t stretch the field outside a play or two. Eason could do that plus he is much more athletic then people think. He isn’t a statue.

[JMichael557 173]

24 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

What exactly about Rivers isn't what it used to be? He has the highest completion % he's ever had. All of his core stats (AVG, ANYA, etc.) are within his career range. His passer rating and QBR are within range as well. He's had up and down years with INTs and 15 or more around 6ish years IIRC. The only thing out of the norm are yards and TDs, which is understandable given the low attempts he's averaging. He's 7th best in deep throw completion %, so still capable of hitting the long ones. IDK, seems like the same guy, and we're just using him different. 

 

As far as Eason is concerned... I'd ride Rivers until we're out of the playoff the race, then let Eason play without pressure. At the end of the day, we're 3-2, and just lost to a good 4-1 team with a top 5 OL, top 5 rush O, top 5 rush D, with the league leader in sacks. Not hitting the panic or eject button yet.

With Rivers at QB we are out of the playoff race right now.

[EastStreet 8,595]

29 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

With Rivers at QB we are out of the playoff race right now.

LOL, we're 3-2. and tied in the AFC for the 7th playoff spot.

 

We're not even at the halfway point yet. 

[JMichael557 173]

I am talking about a chance to win the playoffs.  

[Indyfan4life 783]

12 hours ago, JMichael557 said:

I am talking about a chance to win the playoffs.  

You have no idea how the season will go. You have no idea if they will change schemes for Rivers and stop taking away from Mac. You have no idea how things will be when Pittman and Campbell both come back. Wait until it's actually TIME for the playoffs, where we sit and what happens.

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

22 hours ago, EastStreet said:

LOL, we're 3-2. and tied in the AFC for the 7th playoff spot.

 

We're not even at the halfway point yet. 

Yep, and we're about to enter the hard part of our schedule after the Bengals. The Titans twice, the Texans twice without O' Brien, the Ravens, the Steelers, the Packers. If we lose against the Bengals and go 3-3 heading into the bye week, the season is probably over at that point. This is a must win game on Sunday.

[EastStreet 8,595]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep, and we're about to enter the hard part of our schedule after the Bengals. The Titans twice, the Texans twice without O' Brien, the Ravens, the Steelers, the Packers. If we lose against the Bengals and go 3-3 heading into the bye week, the season is probably over at that point. This is a must win game on Sunday.

We should win the next two. We should beat Houston twice with or without O'B. TN isn't looking great (they've squeaked all 3 games). But I agree we're getting ready to play a tougher schedule. I wouldn't be surprised though if Cleveland and/or Chicago are in the playoffs come end of year. Both are quality teams with some great pieces.

[indyagent17 776]

The defense did a fine job, they only gave up 23 points to a loaded offense that made several Miraculous catches end of story. Red zone offense and a quarterback with a noodle arm and bad decisions cost us the game