Rivers’ 68% completion percentage 2nd highest in team history

[Grigson's Gaffes 117]

To show you how much the league has changed, pretty much every starting QB this season had a completion percentage of 60% or higher, except Daniel Jones. Rivers was okay this year, and he will probably be back next year unless the Colts can land Stafford. It is what it is.

[Patrick Miller 267]

Although I hope we move on I wouldn't be too upset with having Rivers for another season. I think an off season of training camps and preseason games could possibly mean an even better season from Rivers.

[FormerBolt 5]

6 hours ago, chad72 said:

Sheriff brought us back in several games. Luck had a comeback in Cleveland too, if I remember. With all the young gun QBs in the AFC, Rivers' pattern of starting slow in most years (even in his prime) will catch up and the Colts will never get a top seed in the AFC, I am afraid.

 

Rivers fell short vs good playoff teams - Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and eventually the Bills. I was looking for that 1, just 1 comeback against those good teams and it did not happen. INT vs Browns trying to come back, INT vs Ravens to Peters (throwing into double coverage) trying to come back, INT throwing it with 6 minutes to go (even if Frank called the play, Philip shouldn't have thrown it into double/triple coverage) vs Steelers trying to come back. Only signature win was against the Titans on the road on a short week.

 

With Philip, I am afraid it will always be a case of yeah but...

 

Yeah, I didn't throw an INT or win the game but I kept it close enough...

 

Yeah, I did finish 11-5 but I did not do enough to win the division...

 

I don't know what the best answer is. I think with Rivers, our ceiling is limited but without many other options, his ceiling might be the best we can hope for right now and double down on all the supporting cast needs for one last run, I guess. It is not like our D was filled with world beaters. You can count on one hand, the number of play makers on offense and defense we truly have. 

 

Luck is NOT walking through that door, let us be realistic.

Rivers didn't  fail to come back against the Steelers. The game was stolen by the referees. It was a decision they made to save a franchise that earns big dollars for the NFL.

 

The Colts also beat the Bills basically--- except the coach snapped defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[NewColtsFan 9,160]

2 hours ago, Blueblood23 said:

He may not be a problem, but he is not the solution. Colts will not win a championship with him. Sign him have another pretty good year maybe and waste another year. Maybe I’m along on this, but winning the super bowl should be the goal. With Rivers that ain’t happening. If they resign him then we know the club is not all about winning.

I assume you either have not viewed the Ballard press conference, or, if you have, you simply don’t believe him?

 

Is that about it?  

[NannyMcafee 1,694]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

If that is the measuring stick you use to judge a QB then 90% of the QBs in the league fails. 

 

Well... only 1 QB wins the SB every year. 

[SpanosSucks 192]

8 hours ago, chad72 said:

Sheriff brought us back in several games. Luck had a comeback in Cleveland too, if I remember. With all the young gun QBs in the AFC, Rivers' pattern of starting slow in most years (even in his prime) will catch up and the Colts will never get a top seed in the AFC, I am afraid.

 

Rivers fell short vs good playoff teams - Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and eventually the Bills. I was looking for that 1, just 1 comeback against those good teams and it did not happen. INT vs Browns trying to come back, INT vs Ravens to Peters (throwing into double coverage) trying to come back, INT throwing it with 6 minutes to go (even if Frank called the play, Philip shouldn't have thrown it into double/triple coverage) vs Steelers trying to come back. Only signature win was against the Titans on the road on a short week.

 

With Philip, I am afraid it will always be a case of yeah but...

 

Yeah, I didn't throw an INT or win the game but I kept it close enough...

 

Yeah, I did finish 11-5 but I did not do enough to win the division...

 

I don't know what the best answer is. I think with Rivers, our ceiling is limited but without many other options, his ceiling might be the best we can hope for right now and double down on all the supporting cast needs for one last run, I guess. It is not like our D was filled with world beaters. You can count on one hand, the number of play makers on offense and defense we truly have. 

 

Luck is NOT walking through that door, let us be realistic.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but QB’s do throw INT.  It happens, even to the best of them.  Good teams still overcome that.  Rivers didn’t throw any more INT than a majority of the playoff QB.  And if you want to bring Luck into it, he had more INT than TD in the playoffs.  And if you want to break it down to playoff losses, Luck had 3 TD compared to 7 INT.  Not exactly the epitome of clutch. 
 

The browns game I’ll put on Rivers.  A costly pick 6 made it hard to mount a comeback.  
 

The Ravens game wasn’t lost just because of his INT.  
 

The Steelers game was lost because of coaching.  Yeah he threw an INT, but he also put up 24 points in the first half with the offense.  They didn’t lose that game because he threw an INT.  

[Sumo63 632]

3 hours ago, Blueblood23 said:

He may not be a problem, but he is not the solution. Colts will not win a championship with him. Sign him have another pretty good year maybe and waste another year. Maybe I’m along on this, but winning the super bowl should be the goal. With Rivers that ain’t happening. If they resign him then we know the club is not all about winning.

I dont entirely disagree until the last take.  Colts won 11 games with Rivers and he was not the reason we lost to the Bill's.  Colts were an AFC championship game quality team this year.  Should have beat the Bill's, could have beaten KC.

 

Resigning him shows a dedication to the status quo (which was an 11 win season and a playoff berth) but doesnt indicate a lack of desire to win. 

 

Personally I hope we can find a better option (either physical or financial) in 2021.

[tvturner 471]

10 hours ago, chad72 said:

Rivers fell short vs good playoff teams - Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and eventually the Bills. I was looking for that 1, just 1 comeback against those good teams and it did not happen. INT vs Browns trying to come back, INT vs Ravens to Peters (throwing into double coverage) trying to come back, INT throwing it with 6 minutes to go (even if Frank called the play, Philip shouldn't have thrown it into double/triple coverage) vs Steelers trying to come back. Only signature win was against the Titans on the road on a short week.

Cleveland - Definitely Philip's fault
Baltimore - The interception that was never an interception and flipped the game for the Ravens?

Pittsburgh - That loss is more of a testament to terrible playcalling/referees

Buffalo - Rivers played one of his best games and Reich blew it again

 

[GoColts8818 4,688]

2 hours ago, SpanosSucks said:

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but QB’s do throw INT.  It happens, even to the best of them.  Good teams still overcome that.  Rivers didn’t throw any more INT than a majority of the playoff QB.  And if you want to bring Luck into it, he had more INT than TD in the playoffs.  And if you want to break it down to playoff losses, Luck had 3 TD compared to 7 INT.  Not exactly the epitome of clutch. 
 

The browns game I’ll put on Rivers.  A costly pick 6 made it hard to mount a comeback.  
 

The Ravens game wasn’t lost just because of his INT.  
 

The Steelers game was lost because of coaching.  Yeah he threw an INT, but he also put up 24 points in the first half with the offense.  They didn’t lose that game because he threw an INT.  

I look at the Browns and Steelers games and I’ll add the Bills game in there too, the defense shoulders as much weight for those loses as anything else.  The Browns game they couldn’t stop the Browns at all in the first half and even though they played great in the second half they couldn’t get a stop with the game on the line at the end.

 

The Steelers game was the reverse.  Lights out first half awful second half.  That was the only half of like the last five games the Steelers played that their offense could do anything so it’s not like they were a red hot offense that was bound to catch fire.  
 

The Bills game the defense was up and down but they gave up too many drives, couldn’t force a turnover, couldn’t get to the QB, and had maybe the most costly mistake of the day with the off-sides play.  
 

Look I think the defense is really good and I know they aren’t going to be perfect all the time however, when things went south for the defense this year it went really south and they had no answers until halftime to adjust or the next game.  Also I always see people blame the offense or coaches because they weren’t perfect yet most won’t say a word about the defense and if someone does they attack the person by saying well they won’t be perfect all the time but yet expect that from the offense and coaches...

[rayski 216]

Checkdown Rivers 

[colts8718 165]

What was the average yards per throw 

[Smoke317 1,308]

I've been going over Rivers stats this season and when you really look at them deeply, he just was not very good this season.  He feasted on bad teams and against good teams he was terrible.  I'm going to make a topic that does a full breakdown of Rivers performances this season vs winning and losing teams.  It's just a lot of information and I'm not good at making charts on here but I'm still gonna give it a shot because the numbers are very telling and will prove that Rivers was just not very good this season and when we needed him to play big vs good teams he just coldn't get it done.  I'll leave you guys with just a sample of the numbers that I found:

 

I'm gonna pick a number that I think most would say isn't too  bad of a pass to run ratio.  60-40.  That basically comes out to 30 passes and 20 runs a game.  Our record for whenever Rivers threw 3 passes to 2 runs was 1-5.  The only win was against the lowly Bengals.  Whenever he was below that 60% pass ratio we were 10-1.   The only loss was against the Steelers where Rivers decided that in a game we held a 24-7 lead in the 2nd half, he needed to finish that game throwing 23 passes to 3 runs... 

 

Let's break it down even more.  Let's make it an even 50/50 run vs pass split.  In those scenarios we were 4-6 in games where we even let Rivers throw it 1 more time than we ran it (Bengals & 2 fortunate Texans wins make up 3 of those wins).  Both teams picking in top 6.  Only win against a good team where we threw it more than we passed it was first Titans game.  That means that we finished 7-0 in games where we ran it more than we passed it.

 

In other words, Rivers was nothing more than a game manager.  He could beat teams like the Bengals, Texans, and Titans on a short week throwing it more than we ran it.  But when we needed him to carry us and beat a good team he just couldn't do it.  Unfortunately, Rivers couldn't recognize that.  He kept trying to prove that he could go out and win us games but the numbers say that he just couldn't get it done. 

 

Sure he completed 68% of his passes but the guy couldn't put the team on his back against good teams.  If he can't humble himself and accept the fact that he is just a game manager that should never throw more than 60% of the time vs good teams then he should not be brought back.

[jvan1973 5,473]

10 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I've been going over Rivers stats this season and when you really look at them deeply, he just was not very good this season.  He feasted on bad teams and against good teams he was terrible.  I'm going to make a topic that does a full breakdown of Rivers performances this season vs winning and losing teams.  It's just a lot of information and I'm not good at making charts on here but I'm still gonna give it a shot because the numbers are very telling and will prove that Rivers was just not very good this season and when we needed him to play big vs good teams he just coldn't get it done.  I'll leave you guys with just a sample of the numbers that I found:

 

I'm gonna pick a number that I think most would say isn't too  bad of a pass to run ratio.  60-40.  That basically comes out to 30 passes and 20 runs a game.  Our record for whenever Rivers threw 3 passes to 2 runs was 1-5.  The only win was against the lowly Bengals.  Whenever he was below that 60% pass ratio we were 10-1.   The only loss was against the Steelers where Rivers decided that in a game we held a 24-7 lead in the 2nd half, he needed to finish that game throwing 23 passes to 3 runs... 

 

Let's break it down even more.  Let's make it an even 50/50 run vs pass split.  In those scenarios we were 4-6 in games where we even let Rivers throw it 1 more time than we ran it (Bengals & 2 fortunate Texans wins make up 3 of those wins).  Both teams picking in top 6.  Only win against a good team where we threw it more than we passed it was first Titans game.  That means that we finished 7-0 in games where we ran it more than we passed it.

 

In other words, Rivers was nothing more than a game manager.  He could beat teams like the Bengals, Texans, and Titans on a short week throwing it more than we ran it.  But when we needed him to carry us and beat a good team he just couldn't do it.  Unfortunately, Rivers couldn't recognize that.  He kept trying to prove that he could go out and win us games but the numbers say that he just couldn't get it done. 

 

Sure he completed 68% of his passes but the guy couldn't put the team on his back against good teams.  If he can't humble himself and accept the fact that he is just a game manager that should never throw more than 60% of the time vs good teams then he should not be brought back.

You understand rivers isn't the play caller....  right?

[RollerColt 2,668]

I thought he had a pretty good season all things considered. If there's someone else out there that's better, so be it. By all means, upgrade if possible. But Rivers did what was expected of him this season, and helped get a 7-9 team to 11-5 and back in the playoffs. 

 

If we don't bring Rivers back, I have a feeling it's more due to cap issues than performance. 

[Smoke317 1,308]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

You understand rivers isn't the play caller....  right?

We have to stop treating Rivers like he is some young pup who is gonna run every play just as Frank calls it.  I believe that a future HoF like Rivers has the ability to audible any and every play depending on a look he gets from the defense.  Frank will defer to Rivers' judgment more often than not.  Frank even stated after the Steelers game that runs were called and Rivers audibled out of them. 

 

Any wonder why Frank went to Jacoby on 2nd & 11 the following week vs the Jags?  Well he told us.  He "really wanted to run the ball right there and put the game away."  Even if they had to use 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down.  Why couldn't he keep Rivers in and run it?  Because he knew Rivers would audible out of some of those runs.  It was his M.O. this season.  Jags, Ravens and Steelers games were all close games we lead in the 2nd halves.  Why would Frank abandon running the ball in those games?  

[Smoke317 1,308]

1 minute ago, Smoke317 said:

We have to stop treating Rivers like he is some young pup who is gonna run every play just as Frank calls it.  I believe that a future HoF like Rivers has the ability to audible any and every play depending on a look he gets from the defense.  Frank will defer to Rivers' judgment more often than not.  Frank even stated after the Steelers game that runs were called and Rivers audibled out of them. 

 

Any wonder why Frank went to Jacoby on 2nd & 11 the following week vs the Jags?  Well he told us.  He "really wanted to run the ball right there and put the game away."  Even if they had to use 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down.  Why couldn't he keep Rivers in and run it?  Because he knew Rivers would audible out of some of those runs.  It was his M.O. this season.  Jags, Ravens and Steelers games were all close games we lead in the 2nd halves.  Why would Frank abandon running the ball in those games?  

Like I said we were 7-0 when we ran it more than passing.  10-1 with only Rivers going pass happy trying to match Big Ben accounting for the only loss when he was under 60% pass to run ratio.  Our recipe for success was right there in the numbers.  Why couldn't Rivers recognize it?  He can't beat good teams throwing it more than running it anymore.  If they run it back, I hope they paid attention because Rivers just can't carry a team against good teams anymore.

[jvan1973 5,473]

38 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Like I said we were 7-0 when we ran it more than passing.  10-1 with only Rivers going pass happy trying to match Big Ben accounting for the only loss when he was under 60% pass to run ratio.  Our recipe for success was right there in the numbers.  Why couldn't Rivers recognize it?  He can't beat good teams throwing it more than running it anymore.  If they run it back, I hope they paid attention because Rivers just can't carry a team against good teams anymore.

His game against the bills says otherwise. 

[Colt.45 371]

53 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Like I said we were 7-0 when we ran it more than passing.  10-1 with only Rivers going pass happy trying to match Big Ben accounting for the only loss when he was under 60% pass to run ratio.  Our recipe for success was right there in the numbers.  Why couldn't Rivers recognize it?  He can't beat good teams throwing it more than running it anymore.  If they run it back, I hope they paid attention because Rivers just can't carry a team against good teams anymore.

Rivers was EXACTLY what the Colts thought he would be. The version of the Colts you saw in 2020 is very close to what Reich and Ballard envisioned given what happened in 2019.

I get what you're trying to say but given that Rivers is what they thought he'd be, and honestly he's what I expected he'd be. I don't really understand your post objective.

 

Are you trying to say he wasn't GREAT? Well yeah, he has obvious limitations. He limits the offense because of those physical handicaps.

Are you saying he cannot carry the team? I think he needs pieces around him to stand a chance of winning. We saw those pieces in 2020, and the goal was not far off. 

Do the Colts need a future plan? 100%

 

Saying he wasn't very good seems like you're trying to pi$$ all over the guy. He was exactly as advertised and maybe even more. You dont want him throwing 100 times, sure but there'll be games where the defense stacks against Indy's run game and he HAS to throw. Can he do it then? I think the answer is yes. It isn't always pretty or perfect but it's fit to purpose, and in the condition the team is right now, you take that and keep it moving.

[chad72 7,374]

2 hours ago, colts8718 said:

What was the average yards per throw 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/passing_advanced.htm

 

Rivers had an ungodly amount of YAC, and it is a testament to his best skill, anticipation and letting the pass catcher gain yards after the catch. It shows up in the stats. Brady, Allen, Stafford , Watson, Tannehill, Mayfield all have Rivers beat in completed air yards per completion (sort by CAY/completion) by close to 2 yards. If you however sort it by YAC per completion, Rivers is Top 2 in the league, only after Aaron Rodgers.

 

This also means Reich and Sirianni have done an excellent job to be Top 4 in the league in YAC and Top 2 in the league in YAC per completion, given that Rivers is not getting all that YAC because he extends plays whatsoever (might be the case with Rodgers and Mahomes but not with Rivers).

[Stephen 1,871]

55 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/passing_advanced.htm

 

Rivers had an ungodly amount of YAC, and it is a testament to his best skill, anticipation and letting the pass catcher gain yards after the catch. It shows up in the stats. Brady, Allen, Stafford , Watson, Tannehill, Mayfield all have Rivers beat in completed air yards per completion (sort by CAY/completion) by close to 2 yards. If you however sort it by YAC per completion, Rivers is Top 2 in the league, only after Aaron Rodgers.

 

This also means Reich and Sirianni have done an excellent job to be Top 4 in the league in YAC and Top 2 in the league in YAC per completion, given that Rivers is not getting all that YAC because he extends plays whatsoever (might be the case with Rodgers and Mahomes but not with Rivers).

Put rivers mind Eason's body and the perfect qb

[Superman 9,396]

40 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Put rivers mind Eason's body and the perfect qb

 

Eason is an average physical athlete, at QB. His body isn't what I'd think of when we talk about one half of a perfect QB. He just has a strong arm.

[gspdx 616]

4 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

Rivers was EXACTLY what the Colts thought he would be. The version of the Colts you saw in 2020 is very close to what Reich and Ballard envisioned given what happened in 2019.

I get what you're trying to say but given that Rivers is what they thought he'd be, and honestly he's what I expected he'd be. I don't really understand your post objective.

 

I think this is very true and probably matches what most people think.  

 

The question for me is what do we want next year and what do we expect?

 

• If the goal for next year is to have a repeat of this year with the possibility of some improvement then Rivers is a reasonable choice.  Is it possible the Colts win a Superbowl with Rivers?  I think the odds are not in our favor but possible.  I know some people have greater confidence in Rivers than others but I think we saw what he is capable of this year and it is really what we should have expected.
• If the goal is a Superbowl now at all costs then Rivers wouldn't seem to be the best choice.  Any other serious QB acquisition will most likely be costly. Could put the future of the team at risk by over paying for someone at the most expensive position.  And I am not sure what QB that would even be that would give this team a high probability of a Superbowl appearance.  
• If the goal is the long term solution at QB then we have to start looking at young current QBs that might be available and the draft.

I would bet the goals of the team are a combination of the goals above and Ballard is looking for the right balance to get reasonable performance now while building for the future.  Difficult tight rope to walk.

 

[Smoke317 1,308]

4 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

Rivers was EXACTLY what the Colts thought he would be. The version of the Colts you saw in 2020 is very close to what Reich and Ballard envisioned given what happened in 2019.

I get what you're trying to say but given that Rivers is what they thought he'd be, and honestly he's what I expected he'd be. I don't really understand your post objective.

 

Are you trying to say he wasn't GREAT? Well yeah, he has obvious limitations. He limits the offense because of those physical handicaps.

Are you saying he cannot carry the team? I think he needs pieces around him to stand a chance of winning. We saw those pieces in 2020, and the goal was not far off. 

Do the Colts need a future plan? 100%

 

Saying he wasn't very good seems like you're trying to pi$$ all over the guy. He was exactly as advertised and maybe even more. You dont want him throwing 100 times, sure but there'll be games where the defense stacks against Indy's run game and he HAS to throw. Can he do it then? I think the answer is yes. It isn't always pretty or perfect but it's fit to purpose, and in the condition the team is right now, you take that and keep it moving.

Not trying to pi$$ on him just pointing out what the facts showed. And that’s that against the better teams when he had to throw it more than we ran it we were a losing team.  So that tells me that when he HAD to do it (or he felt he HAD to) because the defense stacked the box he couldn’t do it.  So my point is that he & we (the Colts) need to recognize his limitations if he’s to be brought back.
 

He has the mind to be the perfect game manager. He can’t be the superstar QB anymore against the better teams.  If he takes the approach Peyton took in his final run with the Broncos (Rivers isn’t that cooked but he may as well have been against the better teams) then we can beat the better teams and make a deeper playoff run.  We actually could’ve done it this year if Rivers became more of a full time game manager against the better teams.  
 

Following the game manger blueprint we win the Jags, Steelers, & Ravens games & we’re 13-3 or 14-2 and the #2 seed.  And judging from what I’ve seen this year, that blueprint would be working well in these playoffs. If they do bring Rivers back and expect him to carry the team vs better competition then he needs a Sure Fire #1 receiver.  It’ll give Rivers a security blanket and it’ll open up others off of him.  Should we trade for OBJ if we bring back Rivers?  If we thought Pittman & Campbell looked good on those crossers, imagine ODB?  Those could be house calls with OBJ. 

[Colt.45 371]

10 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

I think this is very true and probably matches what most people think.  

 

The question for me is what do we want next year and what do we expect?

 

• If the goal for next year is to have a repeat of this year with the possibility of some improvement then Rivers is a reasonable choice.  Is it possible the Colts win a Superbowl with Rivers?  I think the odds are not in our favor but possible.  I know some people have greater confidence in Rivers than others but I think we saw what he is capable of this year and it is really what we should have expected.
• If the goal is a Superbowl now at all costs then Rivers wouldn't seem to be the best choice.  Any other serious QB acquisition will most likely be costly. Could put the future of the team at risk by over paying for someone at the most expensive position.  And I am not sure what QB that would even be that would give this team a high probability of a Superbowl appearance.  
• If the goal is the long term solution at QB then we have to start looking at young current QBs that might be available and the draft.

I would bet the goals of the team are a combination of the goals above and Ballard is looking for the right balance to get reasonable performance now while building for the future.  Difficult tight rope to walk.

 

 

You raise good points.

 

I think the Colts had everything to win a SB this year. They believed that, and from everything we've seen in the playoffs, I agree with them. Now, even if they won a SB this year, I dont think it's a stretch to say that it would have been a team that won while not being the best version of the offense that it could be (I think this version of the offense is pretty condensed to match the QB's ability). NEXT YEAR, the big unknown with Rivers is that he a QB who is a year older, with some injury issues. It's a risk. I'm sure the team has run its scenario analysis and will come up with the best solution.

 

If the goal next season is a SB at all costs i.e. all chips in the pot, then I don't think it gets better than Rivers. I like Stafford and I drool at the prospect of him with Frank Reich but I think the deal with him is high ceiling but lower floor than Rivers. With Rivers, I think his ceiling is probably what we saw this season, maybe a pinch higher, but as long as he is healthy, i think this is also close to his floor. 

A rookie QB could come in and have a higher ceiling than Rivers, but once again, the floor would be in the basement I imagine because you just can never tell.

Eason? Same as a rookie I think.

 

The goal from day 1 should always be finding a future QB. Ballard has always said that. At least since Luck walked. It's always forefront in their mind, he has done nothing to make me think otherwise.

[Colt.45 371]

7 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Not trying to pi$$ on him just pointing out what the facts showed. And that’s that against the better teams when he had to throw it more than we ran it we were a losing team.  So that tells me that when he HAD to do it (or he felt he HAD to) because the defense stacked the box he couldn’t do it.  So my point is that he & we (the Colts) need to recognize his limitations if he’s to be brought back.
 

He has the mind to be the perfect game manager. He can’t be the superstar QB anymore against the better teams.  If he takes the approach Peyton took in his final run with the Broncos (Rivers isn’t that cooked but he may as well have been against the better teams) then we can beat the better teams and make a deeper playoff run.  We actually could’ve done it this year if Rivers became more of a full time game manager against the better teams.  
 

Following the game manger blueprint we win the Jags, Steelers, & Ravens games & we’re 13-3 or 14-2 and the #2 seed.  And judging from what I’ve seen this year, that blueprint would be working well in these playoffs. If they do bring Rivers back and expect him to carry the team vs better competition then he needs a Sure Fire #1 receiver.  It’ll give Rivers a security blanket and it’ll open up others off of him.  Should we trade for OBJ if we bring back Rivers?  If we thought Pittman & Campbell looked good on those crossers, imagine ODB?  Those could be house calls with OBJ. 

 

I think this coaching and admin staff have always been about that BALANCED offense, even when #12 was QB. I dont think they've ever wanted the QB 'carrying' the offense if they can help it.

 

Those games you reference are fair game but I think you're possibly underestimating how much Reich already calls to games recognizing who is at QB. I'm close to 100% certain that much of how the Offense played in 2020 was QB-dependent. I think they recognize those limitations.

 

On your comment about 'game manager', I don't know that I can agree there. Rivers is already the ultimate Captain Checkdown (is that what you mean by game manager?) and he has always been more about taking what the defense gives him. He's still good at that.

 

Throw out the Jags game because even Luck lost to them and they always give the Colts a game for some odd reason. The other two games are games I think were winnable but dont underestimate how good those defenses are. I think they forced Rivers into situations that led to the decisions he made. I dont think Rivers has ever been a hero-ball QB....

 

One last thing, I think even as the 7 seed this year, the Colts showed enough to get to the SB but that's just me and my personal biases. 

[GoColts8818 4,688]

6 hours ago, colts8718 said:

What was the average yards per throw 

Who cares if the offense is scoring at least 24 points a game which they did in their last seven games?  That’s the most important thing.  If the Colts bring in a new QB they are going to have a hard time matching that.

 

The rule with Peyton was for the defense to hold the other team to 20 points.  This is supposed to be a much better defense so 24 points at least should be enough for this team to win.  So I’d say the offense did their job down the stretch.  

[shasta519 2,946]

Not surprising at all. Here is how he ranked in other categories:

 

Intended Air Yards/PA - 26

Completed Air Yards/PA - 28

Completed Air Yards/Completion - 29

YAC/Completion - 2

 

First...it cannot be ignored that the Colts played (by far) the easiest schedule on offense. The average defense they played would have ranked ~23rd in DVOA. And that average was "deflated" somewhat by playing #1 defense PIT...when they clearly weren't the #1 defense anymore (after losing players to injury). That definitely played a factor.

 

Second...these numbers are as much Reich as it is anything. Reich uses the mesh concept (like he did with JB last year)...which creates open players in space and allows for YAC. 

 

In fact, River's numbers (in the above categories) were very similar to JB's numbers last season. But Rivers is just a much better QB...and throws with better anticipation and accuracy. Throw in a HR hitter like Taylor and a young talented WR like Pittman...and you (naturally) have much better QB production with these concepts.

 

With the Colts offensive system, I think they could have immediate success with just about any talented QB they brought in...including a rookie. And if that QB is mobile...it will open up the playbook even more and raise the ceiling.

 

So I am in the minority here...but Rivers coming back doesn't move the needle for me. It's a lateral and stagnant move. I was all for the signing Rivers last off season...because it was the best of not-so-ideal situation. But if anything, it just proved that this team is ready to take the next step forward...and that means getting the right QB. Now is the time to make that move. So the only way I want Rivers back is if they get aggressive and move up to draft a QB who might need to sit for a part or all of a season. 

 

TBH...I would rather roll the dice on Darnold and accept the risk of a reset year. I think he make a  good transition to this offense. And either he breaks out and suddenly you have a 24 year-old franchise QB...or he doesn't...and you have a reset year with the Colts in a much better position to draft a QB. Bringing back Rivers does nothing for the position long-term...and likely means another pick in the 20s. 

 

 

 

[shasta519 2,946]

9 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Who cares if the offense is scoring at least 24 points a game which they did in their last seven games?  That’s the most important thing.  If the Colts bring in a new QB they are going to have a hard time matching that.

 

We should care...because it's not enough. If you want to win the SB...it's not enough to have a quasi top 10 offense. And with Rivers...that's what the Colts had...and it was against by far the league's easiest schedule. 

 

And they aren't going to suddenly take the next step with Rivers a year older...even if they add weapons. Rivers has defined limitations.

 

I think it's pretty simple. If we look at offensive scoring...the top 7 teams were all playing last weekend (and it should have been the top 8 if SEA hadn't drastically fallen off). But even more importantly, 4 of the top 5 teams will play in the CCGs. This means a top 5 scoring offense is gtd to win the SB this year for the 5th year in a row (since DEN and their historically great defense).

 

I am not meaning to sound preachy...but I have been saying this for years now...it is ALL about offense in the NFL now. And to get there...teams have to roll the dice on getting a franchise QB...and invest in weapons.

 

Ballard is very smart and adept...and he knows what he has to do in regards to the offense. And I think people are going to be shocked...at least I hope they are.

[GoColts8818 4,688]

36 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

We should care...because it's not enough. If you want to win the SB...it's not enough to have a quasi top 10 offense. And with Rivers...that's what the Colts had...and it was against by far the league's easiest schedule. 

 

And they aren't going to suddenly take the next step with Rivers a year older...even if they add weapons. Rivers has defined limitations.

 

I think it's pretty simple. If we look at offensive scoring...the top 7 teams were all playing last weekend (and it should have been the top 8 if SEA hadn't drastically fallen off). But even more importantly, 4 of the top 5 teams will play in the CCGs. This means a top 5 scoring offense is gtd to win the SB this year for the 5th year in a row (since DEN and their historically great defense).

 

I am not meaning to sound preachy...but I have been saying this for years now...it is ALL about offense in the NFL now. And to get there...teams have to roll the dice on getting a franchise QB...and invest in weapons.

 

Ballard is very smart and adept...and he knows what he has to do in regards to the offense. And I think people are going to be shocked...at least I hope they are.

It is enough.  The Colts were a top 10 offense this year.  The name of the game is to score points not get yards so I don’t care how many yards the QB completes passes for as long as they are scoring points.  
 

The issue I keep seeing is that people want this offense to be something it’s not designed to be, a quick strike offense that puts up a lot of points like Luck and Manning did.  It designed to be a ball control methodical offense that wears out a defense over the course of a game combined with a defense that gets their offense off the field quickly.  
 

For years people have wanted the Colts to be more like the Pats because they won.  Well this is what Brady did for years on offense when he won Super Bowls.  Now people are complaining because it’s not flashy like it was with Manning and Luck.  More proof people will find something to complain about no matter what.  

Also once Rivers got familiar with the offense and the light went on for Taylor and they got their WRs back the offense put up at least 24 points in the last 9 games and averaged nearly 30 points a game over that span.  If your losing doing that the problem isn’t your offense.  

 

In each of the games the Colts lost this year the defense failed more than the offense other than maybe the Ravens game yet people want to jump on the offense and give the defense a pass.  
 

Can the offense get better?  Sure but it’s not nearly as bad as some make it out to be and could in fact get a lot worse.  

[DownHillRunner 405]

Rivers had the same QBR as Mitchell Trubisky. I'm not sorry to say this but we need a lot more at the Quarterback position. I wonder how much of that completion percentage was on short to intermediate throws. 

[Superman 9,396]

30 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The issue I keep seeing is that people want this offense to be something it’s not designed to be, a quick strike offense that puts up a lot of points like Luck and Manning did.  

 

...
 

Can the offense get better?  Sure but it’s not nearly as bad as some make it out to be and could in fact get a lot worse.  

 

I feel like people keep trying to box this discussion in...

 

I don't need the offense to be a quick strike offense that scores 35 a game. And I'm not comforted by the fact that it could get worse.

 

There are obvious deficiencies with the offense. We were below average on third down and in the red zone. 

 

And of course there are obvious deficiencies on defense. To me, it's clear that we need to get better on both sides of the ball.

[GoColts8818 4,688]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I feel like people keep trying to box this discussion in...

 

I don't need the offense to be a quick strike offense that scores 35 a game. And I'm not comforted by the fact that it could get worse.

 

There are obvious deficiencies with the offense. We were below average on third down and in the red zone. 

 

And of course there are obvious deficiencies on defense. To me, it's clear that we need to get better on both sides of the ball.

Your third paragraph I would agree with and are much bigger problems than yards per completion.  
 

I don’t mean to make it sound like the offense is perfect and the defense isn’t.  I don’t feel that way.  I, like you, think both need to get better.  On defense they need help in the secondary and pass rush and probably another starting linebacker as I don’t expect Walker back.  
 

On offense clearly they need a left tackle but aside from that they need a third down guy like Marvin was for Peyton or Reggie was for Andrew.  A guy the QB knows he can go to on third down no matter what.  Maybe that guy is on the roster and maybe a new QB or true off season with Rivers will let him develop that chemistry with someone.  I also think they need a little more production from Doyle at the TE position and need to move on from Burton.  Lastly, they lack a true number WR hurts the offense.  TY is fading and I don’t think Pittman is ready for that yet.  That might just be some growing pains the Colts have to live with until Pittman takes that roll as I am not sure how much more they are willing to invest in WRs.

[shasta519 2,946]

50 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

It is enough.  The Colts were a top 10 offense this year.  The name of the game is to score points not get yards so I don’t care how many yards the QB completes passes for as long as they are scoring points.  
 

The issue I keep seeing is that people want this offense to be something it’s not designed to be, a quick strike offense that puts up a lot of points like Luck and Manning did.  It designed to be a ball control methodical offense that wears out a defense over the course of a game combined with a defense that gets their offense off the field quickly.  
 

For years people have wanted the Colts to be more like the Pats because they won.  Well this is what Brady did for years on offense when he won Super Bowls.  Now people are complaining because it’s not flashy like it was with Manning and Luck.  More proof people will find something to complain about no matter what.  

Also once Rivers got familiar with the offense and the light went on for Taylor and they got their WRs back the offense put up at least 24 points in the last 9 games and averaged nearly 30 points a game over that span.  If your losing doing that the problem isn’t your offense.  

 

In each of the games the Colts lost this year the defense failed more than the offense other than maybe the Ravens game yet people want to jump on the offense and give the defense a pass.  
 

Can the offense get better?  Sure but it’s not nearly as bad as some make it out to be and could in fact get a lot worse.  

 

Those NE teams were top 3 in scoring for almost a decade.

 

Reich's stated goal this offseason was to make the offense more explosive. He doesn't want it to just be some methodical clock control offense. And when the Colts scored this year...it was often because of explosive plays. The back half of the season was full of a huge plays...sometimes against lackluster defenses...which played a big part in that point average.

 

Also, the Colts were also 2nd in points scored by the defense per game...and that doesn't even include the points from short fields they provided with TOs. It's hard to expect much improvement their overall. But aside from pressuring the QB...I would argue that it isn't even needed (at least not like offense).

 

But on offense...improvement is a necessity if they want to win a SB. Just being a top 10 offense isn't enough. It hasn't been enough for the past 5 seasons.

[EastStreet 9,714]

7 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Those NE teams were top 3 in scoring for almost a decade.

 

Reich's stated goal this offseason was to make the offense more explosive. He doesn't want it to just be some methodical clock control offense. And when the Colts scored this year...it was often because of explosive plays. The back half of the season was full of a huge plays...sometimes against lackluster defenses...which played a big part in that point average.

 

Also, the Colts were also 2nd in points scored by the defense per game...and that doesn't even include the points from short fields they provided with TOs. It's hard to expect much improvement their overall. But aside from pressuring the QB...I would argue that it isn't even needed (at least not like offense).

 

But on offense...improvement is a necessity if they want to win a SB. Just being a top 10 offense isn't enough. It hasn't been enough for the past 5 seasons.

Not sure about all the Reich stuff, in terms of wanting to be more explosive.... I certainly didn't see it. It was rare to see many first read downfield throws. And a lot of the big plays were running plays. Rivers was top 10 in deep ball accuracy, but as a team, we were bottom half of the league in deep ball attempts. That doesn't suggest he was trying to be more explosive. In short, if Reich's goal was to be more explosive, he succeeded perhaps in the running game, but not in the passing space. We saw glimpses at times of an intermediate to long attack (see MN game), but that was the exception, not the rule. 

 

While I agree there is always room for improvement, the O has far less room for improvement than the D. The Ds ranks were inflated due to horrible competition the first half of the year. The pass D was top 5. When we played better comp, the pass D tanked to 20th, and tanked darn fast. The run D is still very good, but the pass D was plain bad at times. You can only write so much of that off on bend/don't break. 

 

Personally, I do think scheme has a lot to do with it. Way too conservative zone, and way too conservative blitzing. But to the original point, the passing O had much less problems than our pass D, scheme or not. I'd also add that I think Reich's O scheme held the O back a decent amount too. You just can't say improvement is needed on O, and not on passing D if we want to win a SB, unless you are just blindly ignoring stats. Even DVOA is pretty clear that our O was better than our D. Not sure I've seen any type of rating, or grade, that would suggest our overall D is better than our O.

 

 

[shasta519 2,946]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Not sure about all the Reich stuff, in terms of wanting to be more explosive.... I certainly didn't see it. It was rare to see many first read downfield throws. And a lot of the big plays were running plays. Rivers was top 10 in deep ball accuracy, but as a team, we were bottom half of the league in deep ball attempts. That doesn't suggest he was trying to be more explosive. In short, if Reich's goal was to be more explosive, he succeeded perhaps in the running game, but not in the passing space. We saw glimpses at times of an intermediate to long attack (see MN game), but that was the exception, not the rule. 

 

While I agree there is always room for improvement, the O has far less room for improvement than the D. The Ds ranks were inflated due to horrible competition the first half of the year. The pass D was top 5. When we played better comp, the pass D tanked to 20th, and tanked darn fast. The run D is still very good, but the pass D was plain bad at times. You can only write so much of that off on bend/don't break. 

 

Personally, I do think scheme has a lot to do with it. Way too conservative zone, and way too conservative blitzing. But to the original point, the passing O had much less problems than our pass D, scheme or not. I'd also add that I think Reich's O scheme held the O back a decent amount too. You just can't say improvement is needed on O, and not on passing D if we want to win a SB, unless you are just blindly ignoring stats. Even DVOA is pretty clear that our O was better than our D. Not sure I've seen any type of rating, or grade, that would suggest our overall D is better than our O.

 

 

Right. Reich talked about it in the offseason...that explosive plays were a missing ingredient. Whether he practiced what he preached is a different story (and of

course there’s context that goes into that...like who their QB was). I am just saying that he has indicated that he wants to be more than a methodical clock control offense. And I think Reich will look to do that...when they have the QB in place.

 

DVOA definitely has the Colts defense rated ahead of the offense. The Colts  overall defense was #7 and the overall offense was #12. More specific to passing, the Colts passing offense was #16 and the Colts passing defense was #8.

 

The defensive ratings are likely skewed by the first half of the season...but the offense had the easiest schedule of any team...and still managed to be middle of the pack in passing offense (according to DVOA). 
 

Yes there’s room for improvement on defense...but it’s tough to expect better than a top 7 unit. An edge rusher will help with the pressure rates...but they have showed they can make big plays and create takeaways. I would say the defense is pretty damn close to being a viable SB winning defense (especially when teams like KC, GB and BUF are currently playing to go to the SB).

 

So the priority should be the passing offense. It’s the necessity to this team getting to the next level...which is a SB. Otherwise, they would have to buck a trend that only historically elite defenses have been able to do.

 

And to improve the offense...they need a franchise QB and additional weapons. 

[EastStreet 9,714]

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

Right. Reich talked about it in the offseason...that explosive plays were a missing ingredient. Whether he practiced what he preached is a different story (and of

course there’s context that goes into that...like who their QB was). I am just saying that he has indicated that he wants to be more than a methodical clock control offense. And I think Reich will look to do that...when they have the QB in place.

 

DVOA definitely has the Colts defense rated ahead of the offense. The Colts  overall defense was #7 and the overall offense was #12. More specific to passing, the Colts passing offense was #16 and the Colts passing defense was #8.

 

The defensive ratings are likely skewed by the first half of the season...but the offense had the easiest schedule of any team...and still managed to be middle of the pack in passing offense (according to DVOA). 
 

Yes there’s room for improvement on defense...but it’s tough to expect better than a top 7 unit. An edge rusher will help with the pressure rates...but they have showed they can make big plays and create takeaways. I would say the defense is pretty damn close to being a viable SB winning defense (especially when teams like KC, GB and BUF are currently playing to go to the SB).

 

So the priority should be the passing offense. It’s the necessity to this team getting to the next level...which is a SB. Otherwise, they would have to buck a trend that only historically elite defenses have been able to do.

 

And to improve the offense...they need a franchise QB and additional weapons. 

FO has Indy as #7 in offensive DVOA, and #13 in defensive DVOA in it's most current ratings.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2021/week-19-dvoa-ratings

ESPN FPI efficiency also ranks the O at 10th, and the D 14th. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/fpi/_/view/efficiencies/sort/efficiencies.defefficiencyrank/dir/asc

 

Sorry man, I can't take anyone all that serious that thinks a 20th ranked pass defense against our 32nd ranked schedule is even close to SB caliber. I mean, we just gave up 260+ to Glennon at home lol which is 45+ more than his average. Prior to that, 340ish to Big Ben, which is 90ish more than his average. And in the playoffs, 320+ to Allen, which is 40+ more than his average. When you allow QBs to constantly get more than their average, you're just not that good if you can't hold them to their average or lower. Especially guys like Glennon. It just defies any and all logic.

[indyagent17 797]

On 1/18/2021 at 8:53 PM, jvan1973 said:

No qb is going to be able to do that 100% of the time. 

ofcourse not but when you need your QB to raise his game Rivers just doesnt have it anymore

[shasta519 2,946]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

FO has Indy as #7 in offensive DVOA, and #13 in defensive DVOA in it's most current ratings.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2021/week-19-dvoa-ratings

ESPN FPI efficiency also ranks the O at 10th, and the D 14th. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/fpi/_/view/efficiencies/sort/efficiencies.defefficiencyrank/dir/asc

 

Sorry man, I can't take anyone all that serious that thinks a 20th ranked pass defense against our 32nd ranked schedule is even close to SB caliber. I mean, we just gave up 260+ to Glennon at home lol which is 45+ more than his average. Prior to that, 340ish to Big Ben, which is 90ish more than his average. And in the playoffs, 320+ to Allen, which is 40+ more than his average. When you allow QBs to constantly get more than their average, you're just not that good if you can't hold them to their average or lower. Especially guys like Glennon. It just defies any and all logic.

First...here are the regular season DVOA rankings that I have been citing this whole time. The defense was ranked well above the offense all season...even peaking top 3 at one point.

Total DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/2020

 

Offense DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-offense/2020

Defense DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-defense/2020

Based on this date, their schedule on defense was actually top 15...while the offense was #32.

 

We can argue which efficiency stats have more merit...but these are the stats I am using. 

 

I assume the Colts being ranked #20 is in reference to opponent passing yards/game. We all know this scheme is conducive to surrendering passing yards. But right behind IND in this category is TB (one of the 4 remaining teams) and MIA (a good pass defense all season). Are you saying those defenses can’t win a SB...because one of them is pretty close. 

And ranked a handful of spots ahead of IND at #13 and #14 is KC and BUF...who allowed ~10 less passing yards/game...essentially one less pass.
 

In fact, there’s a really good chance that a team ranked outside the top 10 in opponent passing yards and team defense DVOA wins a SB.
 

There is no chance that a team outside the top 10 for team passing yards is winning a SB...or outside the top 5 for team offense DVOA.

 

There is always room for improvement...but the Colts are pretty close to where other SB teams are on defense. It’s the offense that needs to take the next step. I am glad Rivers retired...because now we can see it happen. 

[EastStreet 9,714]

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

First...here are the regular season DVOA rankings that I have been citing this whole time. The defense was ranked well above the offense all season...even peaking top 3 at one point.

Total DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/2020

 

Offense DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-offense/2020

Defense DVOA: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-defense/2020

Based on this date, their schedule on defense was actually top 15...while the offense was #32.

 

We can argue which efficiency stats have more merit...but these are the stats I am using. 

What I posted was the post season adjusted, which if you follow FO, you know it attempts to take out the early bogus stuff, and paint a true picture.

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I assume the Colts being ranked #20 is in reference to opponent passing yards/game. We all know this scheme is conducive to surrendering passing yards. But right behind IND in this category is TB (one of the 4 remaining teams) and MIA (a good pass defense all season). Are you saying those defenses can’t win a SB...because one of them is pretty close. 

TB is top 5 in both pressures and sacks. Top 5 in blitz % too. Totally different type of D. They blitz at more than twice our rate. Their run D is more legit than ours too. Their SoS is 8th.... so even if you want to use 15th for us (which I disagree with), then you have to recognize TB's schedule was far harder. 

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

And ranked a handful of spots ahead of IND at #13 and #14 is KC and BUF...who allowed ~10 less passing yards/game...essentially one less pass.
 

In fact, there’s a really good chance that a team ranked outside the top 10 in opponent passing yards and team defense DVOA wins a SB.
 

There is no chance that a team outside the top 10 for team passing yards is winning a SB...or outside the top 5 for team offense DVOA.

LOL.. we were 11 in total passing yards and top 10 in O DVOA.... 

 

It's all pushes and pulls. Sometimes you have a lot of O teams. Sometimes D teams. Sometimes one team just has a good mix.

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

There is always room for improvement...but the Colts are pretty close to where other SB teams are on defense. It’s the offense that needs to take the next step. I am glad Rivers retired...because now we can see it happen. 

You could also say that Indy is better on O than the 2015 Broncos, and just needs the D to catch up....