Inability to adjust on defense

[BProland85]

Why is it that Eberflus has no idea how to adjust to the play action game when an opposing offense runs it? To me it’s a matter of keeping one of your DEs or LBers to follow the QB on a consistent basis. 

[Smonroe]

Luckily the weather played great defense for us tonight.  

[Boondoggle]

Two high safety looks have the drawback of a light box.  Colts play two deep quite a lot which doesn't help.

 

And players matter too.  You can draw anything up but the players need to be able to actually execute it.

[Jason_]

I've complained about him this year too, but let's be real.  All of the injuries in the secondary are really going to handcuff what he can do.

[lollygagger8]

Those bootlegs and misdirection plays were annihilating the Colts D. I'm glad the niners quit running them. 

 

Plus the Colts run D was really, really bad last night.

 

They better figure all this out before they play the Titans.

 

They need to blitz a lot more (and send more than 4), cuz the non-existent pass rush is going to lose them more games when they play another good QB. 

[Frenchy789]

Imagine how we'll be against the Cardinals.. 

[Smonroe]

3 hours ago, J@son said:

I've complained about him this year too, but let's be real.  All of the injuries in the secondary are really going to handcuff what he can do.

Agree, Fluse plays that D mainly because of the players.  It works as good as the opposing QB is for the most part.  The worse the QB, the better that frustrating D works.
 

Tannehill is a better than average QB, and with excellent weapons.  That team is for real.  Fluse better come up with some new wrinkles for this one.  

[DougDew]

He adjusted and the defense was better against it in the second half.  Yes, SF scored on three plays. LOL, but the defenders were actually covering the receivers. 

 

SF got a bit lucky in that a TE got open deep two yards past a WR, and Deebo pretty much smoked Moore on the TD.  Those were individual talent failures and not coaching adjustment issues.

[indyagent17]

He plays the DBs that way because he doesn’t want to get burned. We have good players in the defensive backfield but injuries seems to make Eberflus over reactive. I would love to see Ballard bring in a few more solid DB’s. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I’ll be glad when Ya Sin comes back  

[Smash Mouth]

4 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

Those bootlegs and misdirection plays were annihilating the Colts D. I'm glad the niners quit running them. 

 

Plus the Colts run D was really, really bad last night.

 

They better figure all this out before they play the Titans.

 

They need to blitz a lot more (and send more than 4), cuz the non-existent pass rush is going to lose them more games when they play another good QB. 

Blitzing puts a beat up secondary at risk.  This defense is predicated on the DL getting to the QB without help

[NewColtsFan]

13 hours ago, BProland85 said:

Why is it that Eberflus has no idea how to adjust to the play action game when an opposing offense runs it? To me it’s a matter of keeping one of your DEs or LBers to follow the QB on a consistent basis. 

How is it you decided to post this AFTER one of our better defensive efforts?    Maybe you can arrange a meeting with Flus so you can explain things to him? 

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Smash Mouth said:

Blitzing puts a beat up secondary at risk.  This defense is predicated on the DL getting to the QB without help

Say it louder for the people in back.

 

Also Collinsworth did a good job last night pointing out what gets the Colts defense in trouble is when you use their aggressiveness against them.  Blitzing isn’t going to fix that it’s going to make it worse.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The bootlegs with Tannehill Sunday are going to be brutal.

[#12.]

13 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Luckily the weather played great defense for us tonight.  

 

I couldn't imagine watching this defense trying to defend all the misdirection for 4 quarters in clean weather.

[Smonroe]

1 minute ago, #12. said:

 

I couldn't imagine trying to watch this defense attempt to defend all the misdirection for 4 quarters in clean weather.

They adjusted pretty well after that first drive.  As @Wentzszn said, they’d better plan for Tannehill doing the same thing.  

[#12.]

2 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

They adjusted pretty well after that first drive.  As @Wentzszn said, they’d better plan for Tannehill doing the same thing.  

 

I don't know.  San Fran largely just went away from it until they brought it back and scored on 3 plays in the 4th.  

 

Good win, but I still have little-to-no faith in Ebetflus or this defense.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, #12. said:

 

I don't know.  San Fran largely just went away from it until they brought it back and scored on 3 plays in the 4th.  

It works nice but  you really can’t do that every play. Eventually a defense will figure it out.

[#12.]

1 minute ago, Wentzszn said:

It works nice but  you really can’t do that every play. Eventually a defense will figure it out.

 

"This" defense or "a" defense? 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Say it louder for the people in back.

 

Also Collinsworth did a good job last night pointing out what gets the Colts defense in trouble is when you use their aggressiveness against them.  Blitzing isn’t going to fix that it’s going to make it worse.

 

This is somewhat paradoxical. You could say allowing a QB to operate in the pocket with little to no pressure is going to put the secondary at risk. 

 

Right now, the Colts defensive isn't getting pressure, and the secondary isn't covering well. It's a recipe for disaster. Zone coverage is supposed to help you cover while the front gets to the QB. We're getting beat in coverage right away. And when we do force the QB to hold for a couple seconds, we can't get home with pressure. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

Now we've given up 21 points in the last two games, so I'm not saying we overreact. But we also played Davis Mills, and JG in the rain, so it's not like the defense is suddenly playing great. And if we're going to sit back in zone, rush four, not get pressure, and still get picked apart, then we're going to lose to teams with good QBs. Same as last year, except the defense is worse this season.

[GoColts8818]

31 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

It works nice but  you really can’t do that every play. Eventually a defense will figure it out.

I mean the Colts saw it four times a year at least the past three years from Titans and Texans and look as lost vs it last night as they did the first time the saw it so they haven’t figured it out yet.  That’s what Tom Moore used to do with Manning.  If they found something that worked he called it non stop until the other team stopped it.  

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is somewhat paradoxical. You could say allowing a QB to operate in the pocket with little to no pressure is going to put the secondary at risk. 

 

Right now, the Colts defensive isn't getting pressure, and the secondary isn't covering well. It's a recipe for disaster. Zone coverage is supposed to help you cover while the front gets to the QB. We're getting beat in coverage right away. And when we do force the QB to hold for a couple seconds, we can't get home with pressure. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

Now we've given up 21 points in the last two games, so I'm not saying we overreact. But we also played Davis Mills, and JG in the rain, so it's not like the defense is suddenly playing great. And if we're going to sit back in zone, rush four, not get pressure, and still get picked apart, then we're going to lose to teams with good QBs. Same as last year, except the defense is worse this season.

I am not saying the defense is playing great.  I am mostly echoing what the guy I quoted said and you said.  The biggest issue with the Colts defense is the front four isn’t getting to the QB.  That’s what has to be fixed.  If you start blitzing nonstop to make it happen you are going to expose an already really beat up secondary which will probably lead to more break downs.  The front four has to win in order for this defense to work.

[cbear]

Honestly, SF simply went away from the misdirection and they also never really tested our beat up secondary. Hate to say it, but I think it was more them and the weather then us. 

 

But the D did what they had to do and maybe got some confidence, so we'll see. 

[Four2itus]

My guess is that if games were decided by yards allowed, he would employ a different defense. Thank goodness they track the score. It's not a perfect defense, but it gives the offense a chance to win despite the injuries. That is what matters. 

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

My guess is that if games were decided by yards allowed, he would employ a different defense. Thank goodness they track the score. It's not a perfect defense, but it gives the offense a chance to win despite the injuries. That is what matters. 

Yes without the front four being better and the secondary being so beat up it’s going to depend even more on bend don’t break and get takeaways than we like.

[Four2itus]

4 minutes ago, cbear said:

Honestly, SF simply went away from the misdirection and they also never really tested our beat up secondary.

No offense, but how do you know that? As far as I know, teams adjust to what is being adjusted. If something is working, they keep doing it. Also, if a team sees a beat up secondary, they will hammer that wound. 

[MPStack]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

Right now, the Colts defensive isn't getting pressure, and the secondary isn't covering well. It's a recipe for disaster. Zone coverage is supposed to help you cover while the front gets to the QB. We're getting beat in coverage right away. And when we do force the QB to hold for a couple seconds, we can't get home with pressure. It's a recipe for disaster.

[Smonroe]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is somewhat paradoxical. You could say allowing a QB to operate in the pocket with little to no pressure is going to put the secondary at risk. 

 

Right now, the Colts defensive isn't getting pressure, and the secondary isn't covering well. It's a recipe for disaster. Zone coverage is supposed to help you cover while the front gets to the QB. We're getting beat in coverage right away. And when we do force the QB to hold for a couple seconds, we can't get home with pressure. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

Now we've given up 21 points in the last two games, so I'm not saying we overreact. But we also played Davis Mills, and JG in the rain, so it's not like the defense is suddenly playing great. And if we're going to sit back in zone, rush four, not get pressure, and still get picked apart, then we're going to lose to teams with good QBs. Same as last year, except the defense is worse this season.

 

I'm in that choir.  To add to your point, if we 'help' the front four by sending a LB or DB, then our already less than average talented DBs ability for coverage is even more limited.

 

So what do we do?  I just find it hard to believe that our D linemen are that poor.  We have 2 first rounders and several 2nd rounders.  DeFo is a stud and he's doing his part.  The others, not so much.

 

Can it be their coaching?  I'm not knowledgeable enough to know.  Should they be running different stunts?  Or is the talent just not there?  How many games have we faced backup O linemen expecting to feast, and it just doesn't happen?

[cbear]

3 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

No offense, but how do you know that? As far as I know, teams adjust to what is being adjusted. If something is working, they keep doing it. Also, if a team sees a beat up secondary, they will hammer that wound. 

Jmo as I've watched that game twice now. And after the second drive, they really went away from the misdirection. They still went with a ton of play action but even most of those weren't off misdirection. They returned to it a few times, noteably on that 4th Q. scoring drive.

 

I'm not saying the Colts wouldn't or couldn't have adjusted. It's just that they didn't have to. 

 

Also for the most part garafalo had time to throw, but he really didn't test us very often. 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

The bootlegs with Tannehill Sunday are going to be brutal.

 

If it is an RPO, then like the Ravens did with Kaepernick in the SB, hit the QB regardless and he will speed up his clock.

 

If it is a boot leg, chip the RB and TE on the way to the QB to throw off their timing so that they don't have the depth and space to operate when the QB realizes he has to release it or get hit, that is what Rex Ryan coached his DL and LBs to do thus forcing the QBs to take check downs more often that we can move up and gang tackle.

 

Just have to live with the fact that they will make their plays, just can't have huge chunks completed to make it easy for them. We will have to force the Titans to beat us with someone other than Henry and A J Brown, easier said than done but we have to be dedicated to that plan. Maybe Tannehill won't be on the same page as the other pass catchers and we will stand a better chance.

[OffensivelyPC]

I'm less concerned about Eberflus' game plan than I am the players inability to get pressure and cover the WR.  Eberflus' adjustments won't be worth the time spent calling in the play if the players can't carry out the assignment.  Our pass defense is not in good shape unless we're playing in monsoons every game remaining on our schedule.

[runthepost]

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

The bootlegs with Tannehill Sunday are going to be brutal.

Just wait till Josh Allen and Murray. Both QBs will stretch the defense to the limit and then throw it over the top.

[GoColts8818]

14 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I'm less concerned about Eberflus' game plan than I am the players inability to get pressure and cover the WR.  Eberflus' adjustments won't be worth the time spent calling in the play if the players can't carry out the assignment.  Our pass defense is not in good shape unless we're playing in monsoons every game remaining on our schedule.

So you are saying open the roof…

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

I'm in that choir.  To add to your point, if we 'help' the front four by sending a LB or DB, then our already less than average talented DBs ability for coverage is even more limited.

 

So what do we do?  I just find it hard to believe that our D linemen are that poor.  We have 2 first rounders and several 2nd rounders.  DeFo is a stud and he's doing his part.  The others, not so much.

 

My somewhat poorly made point is that there's value in varying our coverages (which we actually do plenty of, despite what people seem to think), and varying our pressures (I'd like to see more of this). I don't accept the whole 'we can't blitz, the secondary will be even more exposed' argument as readily as others do.

 

In general, I'm fine with playing back and letting the front four rush the passer. But when you're consistently not getting home, and still getting picked apart in coverage (even Davis Mills was 67%, and they went 9/17 on third down), you have to mix in some extra pressure. Judiciously, of course; I'm not saying we should go full-on Blitzburgh. But we have to send a nickel blitz, and an inside blitz, every once in a while. We have to go Cover 1 with an extra rusher on some third downs. And we do, sometimes. But not as effectively as I'd like. The only saving grace is we get turnovers, but turnovers are highly erratic so we can't rely on them as a staple of our defense. 

 

Look at the Ravens game. There are a lot of excuses to be made for that game, but it was basically an extreme example of how our defense can be picked apart if we can't get pressure with the front four. Even against seven man coverages. Lamar was 86%, with 442 yards. 

 

So I'm not sure the whole 'we can't blitz, the coverage would be exposed' argument is good enough. We don't blitz, and the rush is exposed, and then the coverage is exposed anyway. 

[chad72]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My somewhat poorly made point is that there's value in varying our coverages (which we actually do plenty of, despite what people seem to think), and varying our pressures (I'd like to see more of this). I don't accept the whole 'we can't blitz, the secondary will be even more exposed' argument as readily as others do.

 

In general, I'm fine with playing back and letting the front four rush the passer. But when you're consistently not getting home, and still getting picked apart in coverage (even Davis Mills was 67%, and they went 9/17 on third down), you have to mix in some extra pressure. Judiciously, of course; I'm not saying we should go full-on Blitzburgh. But we have to send a nickel blitz, and an inside blitz, every once in a while. We have to go Cover 1 with an extra rusher on some third downs. And we do, sometimes. But not as effectively as I'd like. The only saving grace is we get turnovers, but turnovers are highly erratic so we can't rely on them as a staple of our defense. 

 

Look at the Ravens game. There are a lot of excuses to be made for that game, but it was basically an extreme example of how our defense can be picked apart if we can't get pressure with the front four. Even against seven man coverages. Lamar was 86%, with 442 yards. 

 

So I'm not sure the whole 'we can't blitz, the coverage would be exposed' argument is good enough. We don't blitz, and the rush is exposed, and then the coverage is exposed anyway. 

 

If our rush doesn't get there, at least we should press during the initial few yards before passing it off to a safety, so the secondary can help the rush get there occasionally too, especially if the other team is not loaded with pass catchers and speed. Giving a free release and helping a WR like A J Brown gain a full head of steam is harder to stop inside a zone than playing press to slow him down before passing him off to a zone, IMO. 

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My somewhat poorly made point is that there's value in varying our coverages (which we actually do plenty of, despite what people seem to think), and varying our pressures (I'd like to see more of this). I don't accept the whole 'we can't blitz, the secondary will be even more exposed' argument as readily as others do.

 

In general, I'm fine with playing back and letting the front four rush the passer. But when you're consistently not getting home, and still getting picked apart in coverage (even Davis Mills was 67%, and they went 9/17 on third down), you have to mix in some extra pressure. Judiciously, of course; I'm not saying we should go full-on Blitzburgh. But we have to send a nickel blitz, and an inside blitz, every once in a while. We have to go Cover 1 with an extra rusher on some third downs. And we do, sometimes. But not as effectively as I'd like. The only saving grace is we get turnovers, but turnovers are highly erratic so we can't rely on them as a staple of our defense. 

 

Look at the Ravens game. There are a lot of excuses to be made for that game, but it was basically an extreme example of how our defense can be picked apart if we can't get pressure with the front four. Even against seven man coverages. Lamar was 86%, with 442 yards. 

 

So I'm not sure the whole 'we can't blitz, the coverage would be exposed' argument is good enough. We don't blitz, and the rush is exposed, and then the coverage is exposed anyway. 

I do think they can blitz, they just have pick their spots with it.  

[Smonroe]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My somewhat poorly made point is that there's value in varying our coverages (which we actually do plenty of, despite what people seem to think), and varying our pressures (I'd like to see more of this). I don't accept the whole 'we can't blitz, the secondary will be even more exposed' argument as readily as others do.

 

In general, I'm fine with playing back and letting the front four rush the passer. But when you're consistently not getting home, and still getting picked apart in coverage (even Davis Mills was 67%, and they went 9/17 on third down), you have to mix in some extra pressure. Judiciously, of course; I'm not saying we should go full-on Blitzburgh. But we have to send a nickel blitz, and an inside blitz, every once in a while. We have to go Cover 1 with an extra rusher on some third downs. And we do, sometimes. But not as effectively as I'd like. The only saving grace is we get turnovers, but turnovers are highly erratic so we can't rely on them as a staple of our defense. 

 

Look at the Ravens game. There are a lot of excuses to be made for that game, but it was basically an extreme example of how our defense can be picked apart if we can't get pressure with the front four. Even against seven man coverages. Lamar was 86%, with 442 yards. 

 

So I'm not sure the whole 'we can't blitz, the coverage would be exposed' argument is good enough. We don't blitz, and the rush is exposed, and then the coverage is exposed anyway. 

 

I agree with everything.  The Ravens game isn't the best example.  Like you said, lot's of excuses.  But I think when you lose starters and backups and you're down to third stringers, you're going to be in trouble no matter what D you're playing.

 

And even with all that said, if we had a healthy kicker, we still win that game most likely.

 

Your last paragraph should be a weekly question for Fluse and Reich.  

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

I agree with everything.  The Ravens game isn't the best example.  Like you said, lot's of excuses.  But I think when you lose starters and backups and you're down to third stringers, you're going to be in trouble no matter what D you're playing.

 

And even with all that said, if we had a healthy kicker, we still win that game most likely.

 

Your last paragraph should be a weekly question for Fluse and Reich.  

 

If I took a few minutes, I could find another handful of games where a QB was over 70% completions, and had a ton of yardage against our defense. (Gardner Minshew was 19/20 in Week 1 last year; Rodgers, Watson, Carr, all had really good games.)

 

And even if we won the Ravens game -- and we probably should have -- it's still not okay to let a QB take you apart that way.

 

It's a problem for me because, at a fundamental level, the defense isn't able to hold up against above average QBs. Not just this season, I was saying this to anyone who would listen last season (and it's part of why I didn't care about Autry/Houston leaving; they weren't difference makers that could help the defense get better).

 

So we either need to upgrade the personnel, dramatically, to play this scheme effectively -- and that includes edge rushers, corners, and at least another safety. Or we have to change the scheme. But we'd still need better players, IMO; our corners won't hold up in a different scheme, and our pass rush isn't good enough. There's some developing youth on the roster, but there's also youth on the roster that's not quite coming along. So they're going to have to kick something up a notch before 2022, because what we're doing on defense right now is not good enough.

[Smonroe]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If I took a few minutes, I could find another handful of games where a QB was over 70% completions, and had a ton of yardage against our defense. (Gardner Minshew was 19/20 in Week 1 last year; Rodgers, Watson, Carr, all had really good games.)

 

And even if we won the Ravens game -- and we probably should have -- it's still not okay to let a QB take you apart that way.

 

It's a problem for me because, at a fundamental level, the defense isn't able to hold up against above average QBs. Not just this season, I was saying this to anyone who would listen last season (and it's part of why I didn't care about Autry/Houston leaving; they weren't difference makers that could help the defense get better).

 

So we either need to upgrade the personnel, dramatically, to play this scheme effectively -- and that includes edge rushers, corners, and at least another safety. Or we have to change the scheme. But we'd still need better players, IMO; our corners won't hold up in a different scheme, and our pass rush isn't good enough. There's some developing youth on the roster, but there's also youth on the roster that's not quite coming along. So they're going to have to kick something up a notch before 2022, because what we're doing on defense right now is not good enough.

 

I was listening and echoing your thoughts.  I don't know anyone who supports the scheme Fluse is running.

 

Basically, it comes down to hoping the other team screws up (and Leonard has to keep causing turnovers, which is unrealistic).  And then hope we can out score them.

 

But by running that scheme, we're also letting them control the ball for longer periods of time, and wearing out the D by the end of the games.  Like Kevin Bowen has said - people have to be held accountable from the GM on down.  But no one seems to see the issue.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

I was listening and echoing your thoughts.  I don't know anyone who supports the scheme Fluse is running.

 

Basically, it comes down to hoping the other team screws up (and Leonard has to keep causing turnovers, which is unrealistic).  And then hope we can out score them.

 

But by running that scheme, we're also letting them control the ball for longer periods of time, and wearing out the D by the end of the games.  Like Kevin Bowen has said - people have to be held accountable from the GM on down.  But no one seems to see the issue.

 

I'm not calling for heads. You know I don't do that. But I've been pretty fed up with Eberflus this season.

 

And while I think Irsay's tweet about multiple rings this decade was kind of awkward, the timing of it -- plus his comments about how important the opener is, and other things -- make me think he's putting a little pressure on Ballard to step it up. I don't think Irsay is a meddler, but I do think he'll make his feelings clear to his guys. So him making that comment after the Ravens game was interesting, to me.

 

Ultimately, I don't care what they do, but they have to do something before 2022. Relying on young players who aren't contributing, and all these injuries, and then getting dominated by every good QB we face... it's not gonna work.

[OffensivelyPC]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I was listening and echoing your thoughts.  I don't know anyone who supports the scheme Fluse is running.

 

Basically, it comes down to hoping the other team screws up (and Leonard has to keep causing turnovers, which is unrealistic).  And then hope we can out score them.

 

But by running that scheme, we're also letting them control the ball for longer periods of time, and wearing out the D by the end of the games.  Like Kevin Bowen has said - people have to be held accountable from the GM on down.  But no one seems to see the issue.

When its as unpredictable as its been, there's plenty of blame to go around. But Eberflus Ive always hated how, at least on defense more so than offense, we're content playing "not to lose." Then like in BAL, we can't get Jackson down because of his otherworldly mobility and eventually finds someone. And that philosophy extends long before Eberflus came to town.

 

Funny, though, after year one, some of us were talking concerns about him being poached to HC somewhere else. Now, those of us that thought it then, most surely wished someone had.