Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

What's The Identity of the Colts?


Recommended Posts

Kind of a broad open issue.   When I see other teams, successful teams, I picture an identity right away.  For example:  KC has athleticism and big play.  Tennessee is more smash mouthed.  LVR looks to be run oriented, then vertical.  Baltimore is still about the ground attack and defense.  etc.  Broad characterizations, maybe not totally accurate, but I think identity is important.   Teams with identifies tend to identify its important players, and then builds around them

 

A lot of it depends on the QB, but even when we had Luck, I'm not sure what our identity was (fall behind early, then let him bring us back late?)  When we had PM, it was about being high scoring.

 

When the good teams play, you know what they are going to look like.

 

So what is the identity of the Colts?  Not just this year, but over the next few years?  Where are we headed?  Do we smashmouth it behind Nelson?  Do we dink and dunk like NE did?  Defense first?

 

What say you? 

 

I'll stand back and let others comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Relying on OL dominance to run primarily to set up the pass is our identity on offense. From a defensive point of view, our identity is to do what it takes to limit points with a base 4-3 defense. 

 

That is the best I can think of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, with a new QB, a new RB, no preseason, and replacement WR's.....I think they are still establishing that. A second WR and Leonard back will go a long way to forming what the team is. Remember, there were injuries to the TE corp as well as the WR. 

 

If this team can stay relatively healthy for the next four games, I see an identity forming. Mack was a big loss. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To further my thoughts, my guess is that with some health and consistency at WR, I see PR further utilizing the underneath/screen game and maybe some play action?. That would assist Hilton with corner and fade route opportunities.

 

I am mostly an amateur at this stuff, and many on here know far more than me. 

 

On defense, there isn't consistent pressure on the edge to determine what they ultimately will become. I think by next season, the Colts back seven are going to become pretty solid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think this bodes well for us if we can squeeze into the playoffs. Team would be an enigma of some sort, and opponents wouldn't know what to expect.

 

I don't know though, I always felt like our whole dynamic was shifting into becoming a defensive team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's really hard to know until we have some stability at the qb position. 

 

Strong front office

 

This year were a middle of the road, try to win in the trenches.  Playing a stubornly reoccuring soft zone D, with a slightly overrated offensive line.  An anemic rushing attack.  While showcasing an entirely immobile qb prone to periods of efficiency and turnovers in equal measure......who, judging by his family size, throws with his best ball placement off the field. 

 

IDK, is that an identity?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d say it’s still in the works. If I absolutely had to identify this team, it would be ugly winners? Unnecessary rough guys?

 

We’re not a finesse team anymore. We play in the trench because that’s honestly where our strength is. And for sure we’re transitioning into a defensive team. Though in no way is our defense championship caliber yet. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DougDew said:

Kind of a broad open issue.   When I see other teams, successful teams, I picture an identity right away.  For example:  KC has athleticism and big play.  Tennessee is more smash mouthed.  LVR looks to be run oriented, then vertical.  Baltimore is still about the ground attack and defense.  etc.  Broad characterizations, maybe not totally accurate, but I think identity is important.   Teams with identifies tend to identify its important players, and then builds around them

 

A lot of it depends on the QB, but even when we had Luck, I'm not sure what our identity was (fall behind early, then let him bring us back late?)  When we had PM, it was about being high scoring.

 

When the good teams play, you know what they are going to look like.

 

So what is the identity of the Colts?  Not just this year, but over the next few years?  Where are we headed?  Do we smashmouth it behind Nelson?  Do we dink and dunk like NE did?  Defense first?

 

What say you? 

 

I'll stand back and let others comment.

I think we’re a grinding team. Both sides of the ball. I think we’re built more for low scoring games and low explosive offense. At least from what I’ve seen this season

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, csmopar said:

I think we’re a grinding team. Both sides of the ball. I think we’re built more for low scoring games and low explosive offense. At least from what I’ve seen this season

Most responses seem to be saying the same thing.

 

I think we have built the team from the middle of the field first, then out to the edges.  I think the talent of this team is definitely in the middle.  A person could argue that our top 4 players right now...assuming that TY and AC are on a permanent downside....is probably Buckner, Nelson, Leonard, and Blackmon (projecting he finishes the season playing the same way).  Our talent at the edge positions of CB, WR, DE, and probably OT is not as good.  JT is a good RB, but he does come from a college program that ran up the middle a lot.

 

I think that causes us to have a certain identity.  Its not the identity of KC.  IMO, we are not going to look like them anytime soon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Most responses seem to be saying the same thing.

 

I think we have built the team from the middle of the field first, then out to the edges.  I think the talent of this team is definitely in the middle.  A person could argue that our top 4 players right now...assuming that TY and AC are on a permanent downside....is probably Buckner, Nelson, Leonard, and Blackmon (projecting he finishes the season playing the same way).  Our talent at the edge positions of CB, WR, DE, and probably OT is not as good.  JT is a good RB, but he does come from a college program that ran up the middle a lot.

 

I think that causes us to have a certain identity.  Its not the identity of KC.  IMO, we are not going to look like them anytime soon.

I would agree there. Which is exactly what Ballard says he was going to do. 

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

I would agree there. 

And don't forget, before Blackmon, Ballard picked another FS with a very high pick.  And he plucked JT from WI, a program that runs up the middle. passing on that Sproles like guy from LSU that KC took.  I think that emphasizing the middle of the field is the plan.   Or else its a strange coincidence.

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

And don't forget, before Blackmon, Ballard picked another FS with a high pick.  And he plucked JT from WI, a program that runs up the middle. passing on that Sproles like guy from LSU that KC took.  I think this is the plan.   Or else its a strange coincidence.

No, it’s a plan. He’s said that you build a team from the trenches then to the sidelines. Said it many times and I think he’s sticking to it. I do think we’re set in the middle on both sides now so I think he’ll go sideline stars in FA and the draft big time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colts are a defensive team.  Some might not like the scheme, but making teams drive the entire field works.  Ranked 4th in scoring right now, and below 20ppg which is a feat nowadays.

 

Some gotta reset their opinion of what a good defense looks like I think.  It's all relative to the rest of the league.

 

And btw being strong in the trenches and tough to score on is a really nice combo in the playoffs.  

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

And don't forget, before Blackmon, Ballard picked another FS with a very high pick.  And he plucked JT from WI, a program that runs up the middle. passing on that Sproles like guy from LSU that KC took.  I think that emphasizing the middle of the field is the plan.   Or else its a strange coincidence.

How did Ballard pass on a guy that was taken before his first pick? Unless you're talking about pick #13 which wouldn't have been CEH anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

How did Ballard pass on a guy that was taken before his first pick? Unless you're talking about pick #13 which wouldn't have been CEH anyway.

My bad, I thought CEH was taken later in round 2. 

 

I still think considering the trade up, and the fact that straight ahead Mack wasn't offered a contract, he valued/needed straight ahead JT more than CEH.  He probably would have still taken Pittman if CEH was on the board.  

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

No, it’s a plan. He’s said that you build a team from the trenches then to the sidelines. Said it many times and I think he’s sticking to it. I do think we’re set in the middle on both sides now so I think he’ll go sideline stars in FA and the draft big time.

What kind of sideline stars you you think he will prioritize, profile wise?  Trait wise?  Body type.

 

I see every indication that he values WRs with straight line speed and maybe height more than lateral wiggle.   Something more like an Arians type of down the field post or hook WR than a crossing route wiggly WR.  Agreeing that route running ability and hands are priorities, I see speed and height and even physicality being valued more than wiggle.

 

I see edge DEs as prioritizing rotational/situational players and not so much 3 down players.  The 3T being the steady 3 down player.

 

None of this is bad, or the wrong identity, just observations for others to consider.

 

I'm not sure what he prioritizes in CBs.  I think he sees length as very important.

 

I think having players with certain traits or skills dictates what a team can do well, and not do so well.  And I think a lot of teams stick to a steady philosophy...KC and BALT coming to mind.

 

I'm not exactly sure where the traits I think Ballard values results in what identity.  I think it seems more traditional than innovative, not that its a bad thing, but I think it matters as far as what kind of team we expect to see.

 

Even the QBs are more traditional pocket passers.  He trade for JB, who is not athletic.  Signed Rivers.  Passed on Love.  Drafted Eason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What kind of sideline stars you you think he will prioritize, profile wise?  Trait wise?  Body type.

 

I see every indication that he values WRs with straight line speed and maybe height more than lateral wiggle.   Something more like an Arians type of down the field post or hook WR than a crossing route wiggly WR.  Agreeing that route running ability and hands are priorities, I see speed and height and even physicality being valued more than wiggle.

 

I see edge DEs as prioritizing rotational/situational players and not so much 3 down players.  The 3T being the steady 3 down player.

 

None of this is bad, or the wrong identity, just observations for others to consider.

 

I'm not sure what he prioritizes in CBs.  I think he sees length as very important.

 

I think having players with certain traits or skills dictates what a team can do well, and not do so well.  And I think a lot of teams stick to a steady philosophy...KC and BALT coming to mind.

 

I'm not exactly sure where the traits I think Ballard values results in what identity.  I think it seems more traditional than innovative, not that its a bad thing, but I think it matters as far as what kind of team we expect to see.


The Ed Dodds influences seem to be all over the blueprint like the 2013 Seahawks. Length with CBs and LBs, Cover 3 style, strength down the middle emphasized. Run primarily offense with situational passing and less known wide outs and play good defense.

 

The biggest differences - don’t have a QB to do roll outs to gain yards or keep Ds honest, run game and D not dominant enough.

 

Need to build the outside with another WR with speed and another WR/TE with size utilized down the middle more. Campbell is not an outside guy, IMO. Plus, more penalties for contact from DBs are being enforced nowadays making it harder to play that Seahawks style now in the secondary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion topic.  I have posted before about watching other teams and then thinking about our Colts.  Teams like Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, KC, etc.  They play and look like I wish ours did.  Oft times, in comparison, the Colts look like a minor league club - so, when they do step up and compete against the top-line clubs it's surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we really have that guy to build around offensively. JT and Mack would have been it imo. That has changed. Our uncertainty, or limitations rather, at QB rules that out. TY just not dominate any more. We don't have Mahomes, Henry, etc. Just doing what we can against what the defense dictates. 

Defense its definitely let your front 4 clog everything and pressure, let Leonard and co. fly around wreaking havoc. Zone is our weakness imo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Great discussion topic.  I have posted before about watching other teams and then thinking about our Colts.  Teams like Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, KC, etc.  They play and look like I wish ours did.  Oft times, in comparison, the Colts look like a minor league club - so, when they do step up and compete against the top-line clubs it's surprising.

Thanks.  I asked the question partly because there are some criticisms of the current team because it looks stale.

 

Maybe people are expecting us to look like KC, or even just the Eagles because we have Reich as HC?  

 

Maybe the question should be.  When we play well, play like we are supposed to, what other team in the NFL would we look like?

 

BALT?  No.  Tenn with Henry?  No.  The Raiders, run alot (JT=Jacobs?) then hit the play action over the top?  Maybe.  The old PM Colts?  No.

 

Of course, when you're down 21-0 all teams look the same as they become pass happy, but going in....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, chad72 said:


The Ed Dodds influences seem to be all over the blueprint like the 2013 Seahawks. Length with CBs and LBs, Cover 3 style, strength down the middle emphasized. Run primarily offense with situational passing and less known wide outs and play good defense.

 

The biggest differences - don’t have a QB to do roll outs to gain yards or keep Ds honest, run game and D not dominant enough.

 

Need to build the outside with another WR with speed and another WR/TE with size utilized down the middle more. Campbell is not an outside guy, IMO. Plus, more penalties for contact from DBs are being enforced nowadays making it harder to play that Seahawks style now in the secondary. 

That worked when they had a great defense.  Could still work of course, now the defense has come down to earth more, but they added Lockett and DK since.  Lynch is back too.  Not sure if their oline is a standout or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts identity is that this is Ballards team. When you think Colts you think Chris Ballard. Everyone knows who Ballard is. That makes our identity all about Ballard. until this team becomes elite in its play, this teams identity will be off the field. 

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

    • I think Frank and the OC knew his strengths and weaknesses and didn't put in too many plays that they knew Rivers would have a hard time executing.  They did let him take a deep(ish) shot sometimes.  I'm not sure they were overly conservative at all.
    • Great sumary, 100% accurate.
    • Rodgers only has himself to blame for not running that ball in on 3rd down. He had a clear lane to the EZ.   The decision to go for it should have been mostly irrelevant because 4th down wouldn’t have happened if he did run. And if he doesn’t get there...it’s going to be 4th and short...which makes the case for going for it even stronger.   Rodgers is a great QB...but he made a critical mistake.
    • You seem bitter after a tough loss.   New Orleans is likely to lose Brees (if not a retirement in the coming weeks, likely after next year).  That leaves Tampa Bay, a team you guys could have very well beaten yesterday (dominated time of possession, won the turnover battle, etc... that TD at the end of the half and a few other plays really changed that game, though if you looked at that stat sheet aside from the score, you'd probably have thought GB won).  The rest of the NFC South isn't too big of a threat in the next couple years.  The NFC East is a dumpster fire.  The NFC North is a division you should win for a few more years if Rodgers is your QB.  The NFC West seems like the toughest overall division in the NFC, but they underperformed this year - the Seahawks seem to be on the decline, I don't think Goff is good enough to get the Rams over the hump on an annual basis, not really sure what to think of the 9ers and the Cardinals have a good young coach and QB.    No reason why Rodgers can't at least get back into the SB in the coming years in GB.  The other top QBs in that conference (Brees and Brady) are on the wrong side of 40.  Wilson, Murray and a couple other QBs seem to be a level below those two and Rodgers.  Matt Ryan's getting old, Dak Prescott's coming off a bad injury, and after those 2 I see a pretty big decline in NFC QBs (especially if Stafford leaves the conference).     The AFC on the other hand had 4 QBs who were 26 or younger in the divisional round.  It looks like the Chiefs and Bills with Mahomes and Allen are going to be very tough for a long time coming.  Herbert looks to be the real deal with the Chargers as does Burrow with Bengals, the Ravens and Titans have ridiculous running games and solid Ds and likely will be threats for years to come.  Really, aside from having a hard time believing a few teams (i.e., NYJ, HOU, DEN) will be any good in the foreseeable future (I'd throw Jax in there, but who knows if they get Trevor).  Otherwise, I can see perennial powerhouse PITT declining as Roethlisberger ages/retires.     Overall, I think Rodgers has a much better shot of getting to the SB if he stayed in Green Bay than if he came to the AFC.  The AFC, at least for the next few years, seems like a much stronger conference than the NFC overall and has multiple up-and-coming QBs, whereas several of the top dogs in the NFC have QBs who will likely be retiring before A-Rod does, and definitely before A-Rod is 'washed up'.
    • Brady's reputation as the best playoff QB in the history of the NFL is pretty much already set in stone.  There are ootner QB who can compete in terms of regular season performance -- Manning, Rodgers, Mahomes-- but in terms of doing what is necessary to get to the playoffs and then perform at a high level once there, the only guy who comes close at the moment is #18 and even Mr Manning is a clear second place finisher.
  • Members

    • bluebombers87

      bluebombers87 576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Gramz

      Gramz 2,168

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shepman

      Shepman 131

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hark

      Hark 336

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltsfan1953

      Coltsfan1953 108

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyD4U

      IndyD4U 688

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chucklez

      Chucklez 305

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Robert Johnson

      Robert Johnson 97

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Breeze

      Breeze 108

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...