Looking ahead to the Pats (merge)

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If we have to take the points and score FGs, so be it, this is the game where Frank cannot risk going for 4th downs in the red zone, IMO. The only exception might be a 4th and 1 we can do with a QB sneak. Otherwise, take the points, play field position and hope Mac Jones doesn't execute everything McDaniels wants at a high level thus giving us some margin for error to pull out a W eventually. Both Brady and Belichick, they force you to go the entire 60 minutes to earn the W.

 

Mac Jones, his average depth of target (aDOT) is 7.5 yards.

 

https://www.ftnfantasy.com/nfl/players/309028/Mac-Jones

 

If we can limit YAC and choke the underneath and force his aDOT past 15 yards, that could help reduce a high level of the execution.

 

Responding to the edit: We do a terrible job of defending short and intermediate passes. Works right into Jones' strength and typical usage.

 

I would absolutely try to force Jones to hold the ball, make a second and third read, and try a more difficult throw. That's just not really what our defense has been doing.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

I wouldn’t call Granson and Hines specialists.  Granson is a rookie still learning on how to play in the NFL.  His snaps are starting to go up.  Hines just doesn’t come in to catch passes.  He runs up the middle, he runs wide , you never know how he will used.  We drafted Paye and Dayo to be starters. The jury might still be out but so far so good.  They are getting there.  So I don’t buy we have a roster of just specialists.  We have a lot of young players still developing.  Just like a lot of teams have.  We have some holes to fill but we are just as versatile as NE.

I didn't mean to say that we have a roster of just specialists.  We rely more on specialists and have more of them than NE,  I'd wager.

 

Granson is not a blocking/receiving TE like Gronk or even Doyle.  At 6'1" 245, he was never even thought of as a blocker.  He's not a slot receiver, nor capable of playing on the outside.  He's a between the hash marks receiver, 95% of the time.  That's it.

 

Hines is not a RB.  He's a APB.  He's useless in short yardage.  He's a specialist.  

 

Apparently, Mack can't catch a pass.   JT does what Mack does and can do what Hines can do, and can do more than both.  JT is not a specialist.  He's a real RB.

 

Rotational pass rushers are just that.  Pass rushers.  Its not intended for them to set the edge.  Dayo and Paye are not specialists, they are real DEs, they both set the edge in the running game and rush the passer.

 

Granson, Hines, Ben, Turay.  Those are 4 players drafted between rounds 2 and 4 who are and were intended to be nothing more than specialists.  Inserted onto the field for given personnel packages and play calls.  Count Mack as a player who is a handoff specialist.

 

I'd bet that NE has fewer of those players, and have more players who are simply better all-around players.  Not to mention more physical but less speedy, as a roster.

 

[DougDew]

 

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

I think Hines and Granson are still specialists. One is a pass-catching RB (who might get a carry or two)...and Granson is an H-back who will play a role similar to Trey Burton (provided he develops). But I also think that is intentional for the offense Reich wants to run.

And that was my point about not having a fullback.  Our specialists are oriented towards the passing game, not the running game.  I don't know if NE has a pure APB or H back, or where their roster differs from ours position by position, but it seems more oriented to having a plodding running game even in the face of a D that's trying to stop it than we do.  And our roster make up is part of the reason why we throw it a lot, and probably will against NE.  Its what we do.  Its how we're built. 

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Hines is not a RB.  He's a APB.  He's useless in short yardage.  He's a specialist.  

 

This is false. People won't stop saying it like it's true, but it's demonstrably false.

 

In 2021, on 3rd or 4th down, with 3 yards to go (or less), Hines has 5 carries, averaging 5.6 yards/attempt. Four of them resulted in a first down. In his career, he's 11/18 in these situations, averaging 3 yards/attempt.

 

He's clearly not our best short yardage back, but Hines is not useless in short yardage.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is false. People won't stop saying it like it's true, but it's demonstrably false.

 

In 2021, on 3rd or 4th down, with 3 yards to go (or less), Hines has 5 carries, averaging 5.6 yards/attempt. Four of them resulted in a first down. In his career, he's 11/18 in these situations, averaging 3 yards/attempt.

 

He's clearly not our best short yardage back, but Hines is not useless in short yardage.

The word useless is often hyperbole, by its nature. 

 

In the context of having a power-running option designed to blow up a stacked box, Hines specialty directs Frank to attack the stacked box, or short yardage goal line plays, via the pass more so than a team who might have a fullback.  In the choice of who's on the roster and who is not, Frank and Ballard chose a pass catching specialist as a RB rather than a lead blocking specialist as a RB, which tells the forum how we should expect Frank to game plan for a stacked box, short yardage, or goal line situations.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

I think Hines and Granson are still specialists. One is a pass-catching RB (who might get a carry or two)...and Granson is an H-back who will play a role similar to Trey Burton (provided he develops). But I also think that is intentional for the offense Reich wants to run.

Fair enough….

 

But I see a fair number of posters saying they expect BB to take away both Pittman and Taylor.    If he does, the rest of our weapons are going to have to step up big time.   All of our guys, not just Hines and Granson. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Fair enough….

 

But I see a fair number of posters saying they expect BB to take away both Pittman and Taylor.    If he does, the rest of our weapons are going to have to step up big time.   All of our guys, not just Hines and Granson. 

To me Hines is a special player, great athlete with speed that can catch and run. It wouldn't surprise me if Frank uses him a lot against the Pats. He is a good weapon to have.

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To me Hines is a special player, great athlete with speed that can catch and run. It wouldn't surprise me if Frank uses him a lot against the Pats. He is a good weapon to have.

From your lips, to Frank’s ears!

 

Please let it happen!  

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

From your lips, to Frank’s ears!

 

Please let it happen!  

Yeah I hope it does because I am thinking we will need a good game from him to win this. BB is more worried about Taylor and Pittman is my guess, if Hines can have a big game we should win. Hines usually does have at least 4 or 5 games a year where he looks spectacular, I hope this is one of them.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

I haven’t heard or read this.  I know frank plead for paris cambell and for wentz.  Are there other instances?

Well….  Wentz and Parris are the obvious two.    Well publicized.   But Granson is another.   Ballard talked about that.     And I think Frank was heavily involved in the drafting of both Eason and Ehlinger as well.    So there’s five right off the top of my head.    I would not be surprised if there are more.   I think Frank and CB share a vision on many things. 

[Fluke_33]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Well….  Wentz and Parris are the obvious two.    Well publicized.   But Granson is another.   Ballard talked about that.     And I think Frank was heavily involved in the drafting of both Eason and Ehlinger as well.    So there’s five right off the top of my head.    I would not be surprised if there are more.   I think Frank and CB share a vision on many things. 

I usually read everything I can predraft.  I hadn’t heard that.  Thank you. It surprises me that he defers to him.  

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

I usually read everything I can predraft.  I hadn’t heard that.  Thank you. It surprises me that he defers to him.  

An ESPN article I read this year said most GMs will try to give the HC the quarterback they want.   The relationship is so important and unique that the GM doesn’t want to force the head coach to deal with a QB he didn’t want in the first place.   
 

But most of the rest of the positions are pretty much the GMs call, with HC and coordinator in-put typically allowed. 

If you’re that into the draft, I look forward to talking about that with you as we hit the draft season soon.   The draft and FA are always “in-season” for me!  

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

An ESPN article I read this year said most GMs will try to give the HC the quarterback they want.   The relationship is so important and unique that the GM doesn’t want to force the head coach to deal with a QB he didn’t want in the first place.   
 

But most of the rest of the positions are pretty much the GMs call, with HC and coordinator in-put typically allowed. 

If you’re that into the draft, I look forward to talking about that with you as we hit the draft season soon.   The draft and FA are always “in-season” for me!  

Yeah Chemistry is huge. Mac Jones is the perfect QB for BB and he knew it. I think Luck was for Frank but so is Wentz luckily. 

[NFLUp]

16 hours ago, IrsaysArmy said:

Patriots don’t have a dominate run game. 

Uh, what?

 

Clearly you know nothing about the Patriots.

123.5 yards per game, 153 average over the last 3.  
Trent Brown coming back has been a huge improvement.  
And their run game averages 146 yards per away game.

[Fluke_33]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

An ESPN article I read this year said most GMs will try to give the HC the quarterback they want.   The relationship is so important and unique that the GM doesn’t want to force the head coach to deal with a QB he didn’t want in the first place.   
 

But most of the rest of the positions are pretty much the GMs call, with HC and coordinator in-put typically allowed. 

If you’re that into the draft, I look forward to talking about that with you as we hit the draft season soon.   The draft and FA are always “in-season” for me!  

I don’t watch college ball much but read as much of the armchair experts as I can.  I’m not a big fan of Kiper as I was a huge fan of Joel bushbaum back in the day.   I haven’t found anyone as good as him since his passing though.  Rob rang is who I trust most these days 

[DougDew]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

First….  If Frank wanted a pure fullback, Ballard would get him one.   They think alike and Ballard often defers to what Frank wants. 
 

Second, I don’t know why you think the Colts are somehow suffering from a lack of a pure fullback?    Whether it’s Doyle or MAC or Granson, we’re able to run what we want to run.    We run up the gut.    We run between the tackles.   We run outside.    
 

How have we been hurt by a lack of a fullback? 

Since you are confused after my first response, I'll try again:

 

I did not say that the Colts are suffering.  Nor did I say that we have been hurt by a lack of a FB.  

 

What I said as a game plan, if you plan on attacking a stacked box with the run, over and over, having to power through it, you're going to want a big guy that gets a running start into the hole to smack the LB or S.   A Trey Burton pass catcher or a gadget APB punt returner are pretty much useless if your strategy is to power-run in those situations.  You also would not want to use 6 olinemen as a game plan, or your TEs blocking every play.  You want to use a guy who's specialty is to lead block.  NE and BAL have that guy because they want to run the ball that way.  Why else do they have a fullback?

 

Frank and Ballard have decided to have more pass catching specialists.  So it would stand to reason that, say, on a 1st and goal from the 5 yard line, they are not going to run JT 4 straight times.  They are going to do something else, probably run JT between or just off tackle only once. 

 

They made that trade off when they decided what player to draft where and how to build the roster.     Frank isn't a doofuss for not trying to pound the rock over and over and over.  Ballard is the doofuss for not giving Frank the guys to do it with, if you have to make a choice between the two.

 

I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

 

 

 

 

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Since you are confused after my first response, I'll try again:

 

I did not say that the Colts are suffering.  Nor did I say that we have been hurt by a lack of a FB.  

 

What I said as a game plan, if you plan on attacking a stacked box with the run, over and over, having to power through it, you're going to want a big guy that gets a running start into the hole to smack the LB or S.   A Trey Burton pass catcher or a gadget APB punt returner are pretty much useless if your strategy is to power-run in those situations.  You also would not want to use 6 olinemen as a game plan, or your TEs blocking every play.  You want to use a guy who's specialty is to lead block.  NE and BAL have that guy because they want to run the ball that way.  Why else do they have a fullback?

 

Frank and Ballard have decided to have more pass catching specialists.  So it would stand to reason that, say, on a 1st and goal from the 5 yard line, they are not going to run JT 4 straight times.  They are going to do something else, probably run JT between or just off tackle only once. 

 

They made that trade off when they decided what player to draft where and how to build the roster.     Frank isn't a doofuss for not trying to pound the rock.  Ballard is the doofuss for not giving Frank the guys to do it with, if you have to make a choice between the two.

 

I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

 

I remember when Frank said he wanted us to be a top five running team.  That was a few years ago.  I also remember when we had a true full back in camp.  An ex Steeler I believe.  He was one of the final cuts that year.  I don’t think we had a full back in camp since.  After watching JT’s success this year it will be interesting to see if we bring in a veteran full back to take Mack’s place in the off-season.  I actually think it could be a good move.  The Pats and Ravens are having success with it.  Why not us?

 

 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

I remember when Frank said he wanted us to be a top five running team.  That was a few years ago.  I also remember when we had a true full back in camp.  An ex Steeler I believe.  He was one of the final cuts that year.  I don’t think we had a full back in camp since.  After watching JT’s success this year it will be interesting to see if we bring in a veteran full back to take Mack’s place in the off-season.  I actually think it could be a good move.  The Pats and Ravens are having success with it.  Why not us?

Lifting this out of the text.

 

I would not advocate for one or not necessarily.  Just saying that having one or not having one is going to influence the game plan and play calling, which both are a function of what you want to the team to be good at more so than the traded off attribute you sacrificed in the off season.

 

It helps me to understand the play calling in short yardage situations or why we might not attack a stacked box like some other teams might.  Might help to understand how we approach the NE defense.

 

Personally, I like the two RB options in the back field.  If JT emerges as the big play threat, I think there would be more value in having the bigger plow horse blocker pass catcher guy than another big-play threat like Hines back there.  More versatility in play calling and game planning in general, IMO

[IrsaysArmy]

2 hours ago, NFLUp said:

Uh, what?

 

Clearly you know nothing about the Patriots.

123.5 yards per game, 153 average over the last 3.  
Trent Brown coming back has been a huge improvement.  
And their run game averages 146 yards per away game.

Well of course they do. They have to get yards somewhere because They refuse to let Mac know the ball. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, IrsaysArmy said:

Well of course they do. They have to get yards somewhere because They refuse to let Mac know the ball. 

They also havent play many good teams.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

I don’t watch college ball much but read as much of the armchair experts as I can.  I’m not a big fan of Kiper as I was a huge fan of Joel bushbaum back in the day.   I haven’t found anyone as good as him since his passing though.  Rob rang is who I trust most these days 

I’m not sure I love anyone the most…

 

I do like Kiper and McShay at ESPN.   I really like Jeremiah at NFL.com.    I try to keep my eyes on everyone.    I try to watch for hot trends to see how many analysts jumo in someone.    
 

For example, right now everyone loves Hutchinson, the big Michigan DE.   He’s now #1 on most every Big Board.  But opinions are all over the map on this QB class.   It’ll be interesting to see who is right, and who is not. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Since you are confused after my first response, I'll try again:

 

I did not say that the Colts are suffering.  Nor did I say that we have been hurt by a lack of a FB.  

 

What I said as a game plan, if you plan on attacking a stacked box with the run, over and over, having to power through it, you're going to want a big guy that gets a running start into the hole to smack the LB or S.   A Trey Burton pass catcher or a gadget APB punt returner are pretty much useless if your strategy is to power-run in those situations.  You also would not want to use 6 olinemen as a game plan, or your TEs blocking every play.  You want to use a guy who's specialty is to lead block.  NE and BAL have that guy because they want to run the ball that way.  Why else do they have a fullback?

 

Frank and Ballard have decided to have more pass catching specialists.  So it would stand to reason that, say, on a 1st and goal from the 5 yard line, they are not going to run JT 4 straight times.  They are going to do something else, probably run JT between or just off tackle only once. 

 

They made that trade off when they decided what player to draft where and how to build the roster.     Frank isn't a doofuss for not trying to pound the rock over and over and over.  Ballard is the doofuss for not giving Frank the guys to do it with, if you have to make a choice between the two.

 

I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

 

 

 

 

Sorry….    Still confused. 
 

I don’t see that anything is broken and needs to be fixed.    As I said, if Frank wanted a fullback, Ballard would get him one.   I don’t understand your position about Ballard being a doof?  

[IrsaysArmy]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Mac Jones has been really good on third down. I have a lot of respect for his ability. He was ready to play when he was drafted, and he went to the perfect organization to develop a QB with his traits. 

 

And honestly, if I were game planning against our defense, I'd throw it early and often. I don't think our defense can stop the pass if it's schemed properly, with an above average QB. I'd force Eberflus to adjust the coverages and pressure schemes to take away short/intermediate throws, and if he didn't adjust, I'd just try to pick them apart with the pass game. I think our run defense is much better than our pass defense, but I think we can be run on by the right team also.

Agreed but I would hope Eberflus understands the Pats are probably going to attack us with the short/intermediate routes. Here’s to hoping he plans accordingly

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is false. People won't stop saying it like it's true, but it's demonstrably false.

 

In 2021, on 3rd or 4th down, with 3 yards to go (or less), Hines has 5 carries, averaging 5.6 yards/attempt. Four of them resulted in a first down. In his career, he's 11/18 in these situations, averaging 3 yards/attempt.

 

He's clearly not our best short yardage back, but Hines is not useless in short yardage.

I agree useless is a term that shouldn't be used. But he's simply not the best option/choice in certain situations. Last year, seemed Frank looked (and said) at the RBs as more interchangeable. Feels different this year from a use perspective. Hats off to Frank for making the adjustment.

 

Looking at success rate (Sharp), in 3rd and 4th down runs, with 3 or less yards to go.

 

• 2020 (attempts / success rate)
  • Taylor 27 / 63%
  • Hines 5 / 40%
    • the strange thing to me, is no outside runs of the 5 carries
    • all three fails were red zone carries. 
• 2021
  • Taylor 19 / 84.2%
  • Hines 5 / 80%
    • 2 of the 5 are outside runs, and 100% successful
    • no RZ carries this year under those conditions (3rd/4th, 3 or less)

 

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I agree useless is a term that shouldn't be used. But he's simply not the best option/choice in certain situations. Last year, seemed Frank looked (and said) at the RBs as more interchangeable. Feels different this year from a use perspective. Hats off to Frank for making the adjustment.

 

Looking at success rate (Sharp), in 3rd and 4th down runs, with 3 or less yards to go.

 

• 2020 (attempts / success rate)
  • Taylor 27 / 63%
  • Hines 5 / 40%
    • the strange thing to me, is no outside runs of the 5 carries
    • all three fails were red zone carries. 
• 2021
  • Taylor 19 / 84.2%
  • Hines 5 / 80%
    • 2 of the 5 are outside runs, and 100% successful
    • no RZ carries this year under those conditions (3rd/4th, 3 or less)

 

 

I think Frank gave a coachspeak answer. The fact that JT had 5 times as many short yardage attempts as Hines kind of speaks to the real way the staff views the backs, particularly in their situational roles. Same thing for the way Hines gets more targets (even this season, with Taylor clearly being used as a bell cow, Hines has more targets, and almost as many catches). They've also used that two back package this year, which seems partly based on reads.

 

I said a lot of this last year, coincidentally after the Texans game where Hines got stopped on a 4th and short. Taylor is the team's best player, he's the best back in practically every situation, especially if you're lining up a RB in the backfield. You can give him every short yardage carry. But if you're going to only put Hines in the backfield on 3rd or 4th down on pass plays, then you're tipping the defense. I think that's where the two back package comes in.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, IrsaysArmy said:

Agreed but I would hope Eberflus understands the Pats are probably going to attack us with the short/intermediate routes. Here’s to hoping he plans accordingly

 

That would be nice, but I don't have a lot of faith in Eberflus in this regard. 

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think Frank gave a coachspeak answer. The fact that JT had 5 times as many short yardage attempts as Hines kind of speaks to the real way the staff views the backs, particularly in their situational roles. Same thing for the way Hines gets more targets (even this season, with Taylor clearly being used as a bell cow, Hines has more targets, and almost as many catches). They've also used that two back package this year, which seems partly based on reads.

 

I said a lot of this last year, coincidentally after the Texans game where Hines got stopped on a 4th and short. Taylor is the team's best player, he's the best back in practically every situation, especially if you're lining up a RB in the backfield. You can give him every short yardage carry. But if you're going to only put Hines in the backfield on 3rd or 4th down on pass plays, then you're tipping the defense. I think that's where the two back package comes in.

Yup. I love the 2 back sets. More please. 

 

Overall, it seams clear Frank has adjusted his RZ usage from last year in terms of RB use. And that's what I was most concerned about. I fully agree you have to give Hines short situational carries, and up the gut carries, at times to keep the Ds guessing. I just don't want to see them in the RZ as much. I think just simply having JT on the field keeps team guessing because he's a threat in all phases/aspects. 

 

Overall I love Hines, and want to get the ball in his hands. His rushes per game are down this year though. From 5.5 to 3.9. His targets are also down from 4.75 to 3.6. I'm a little surprised his targets haven't increased with our lack of Z and traditional slot speed. We keep giving ZP a ton of targets, and I'd like to see some of those go to Hines (and MO if I could choose).

[Stephen]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

I didn't mean to say that we have a roster of just specialists.  We rely more on specialists and have more of them than NE,  I'd wager.

 

Granson is not a blocking/receiving TE like Gronk or even Doyle.  At 6'1" 245, he was never even thought of as a blocker.  He's not a slot receiver, nor capable of playing on the outside.  He's a between the hash marks receiver, 95% of the time.  That's it.

 

Hines is not a RB.  He's a APB.  He's useless in short yardage.  He's a specialist.  

 

Apparently, Mack can't catch a pass.   JT does what Mack does and can do what Hines can do, and can do more than both.  JT is not a specialist.  He's a real RB.

 

Rotational pass rushers are just that.  Pass rushers.  Its not intended for them to set the edge.  Dayo and Paye are not specialists, they are real DEs, they both set the edge in the running game and rush the passer.

 

Granson, Hines, Ben, Turay.  Those are 4 players drafted between rounds 2 and 4 who are and were intended to be nothing more than specialists.  Inserted onto the field for given personnel packages and play calls.  Count Mack as a player who is a handoff specialist.

 

I'd bet that NE has fewer of those players, and have more players who are simply better all-around players.  Not to mention more physical but less speedy, as a roster.

 

Granson can definitely be featured more in the passing game.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Yup. I love the 2 back sets. More please. 

 

Overall, it seams clear Frank has adjusted his RZ usage from last year in terms of RB use. And that's what I was most concerned about. I fully agree you have to give Hines short situational carries, and up the gut carries, at times to keep the Ds guessing. I just don't want to see them in the RZ as much. I think just simply having JT on the field keeps team guessing because he's a threat in all phases/aspects. 

 

Overall I love Hines, and want to get the ball in his hands. His rushes per game are down this year though. From 5.5 to 3.9. His targets are also down from 4.75 to 3.6. I'm a little surprised his targets haven't increased with our lack of Z and traditional slot speed. We keep giving ZP a ton of targets, and I'd like to see some of those go to Hines (and MO if I could choose).

 

The red zone angle isn't something I really considered, but you make a good point. Ideally, JT doesn't leave the field in the red zone. Use the 2 back set, go wildcat and split Wentz out, wishbone, whatever, but getting Hines involved shouldn't require taking JT off the field. Specifically in the red zone, and especially on third/fourth down.

 

As for Hines getting the ball, this is one of those 'what's our identity?' kind of things, IMO. Are we the stubborn, run the ball no matter what because we have a good OL and a great RB kind of offense? Will we play the matchups week to week, like we tried to do against Tampa? Either way, I think there's plenty of opportunity to get Hines the ball, but unless we have a distinct identity every week, it's easy for our plan of attack to get scrubbed if the game doesn't follow the expected script. 

 

I think we have to be better at WR next season, for sure.

[EastStreet]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The red zone angle isn't something I really considered, but you make a good point. Ideally, JT doesn't leave the field in the red zone. Use the 2 back set, go wildcat and split Wentz out, wishbone, whatever, but getting Hines involved shouldn't require taking JT off the field. Specifically in the red zone, and especially on third/fourth down.

 

As for Hines getting the ball, this is one of those 'what's our identity?' kind of things, IMO. Are we the stubborn, run the ball no matter what because we have a good OL and a great RB kind of offense? Will we play the matchups week to week, like we tried to do against Tampa? Either way, I think there's plenty of opportunity to get Hines the ball, but unless we have a distinct identity every week, it's easy for our plan of attack to get scrubbed if the game doesn't follow the expected script. 

 

I think we have to be better at WR next season, for sure.

Yup. JT just needs to be an option on the field in the RZ. He doesn't always have to be the choice, but should be on the field at min. 

 

I don't know if the whole Hines question is really an identity question though. Fundamentally he just needs to be part of the game plan somehow regardless of what type of game it is. I must say I'm a little surprised he doesn't get reps out of the slot on the regular with Campbell out. IDK, all I know is he's a great weapon, and high paid for such little use. I know he's had a few drops, one really ugly one, but overall his catching has been above average. 

[LiveAndLetAddai]

  Honestly, we all know that BB is going to try and take away the Colts best offensive weapon, it is his MO.  That would be JT and Pittman Jr. to a lesser degree.  I feel like despite that prior knowledge of BB's game plan, the Colts have to still attack with JT.  If they are successful, the Colts become one dimensional.  Though just thinking out loud, what if they used the Jumbo package to force their will and force BB into another defensive strategy?  If Kelly is cleared, possibly have Pinter has a tackle eligible or just a big TE on the right side.  Force the Colts will on the Pats defense and open up other possibilities with Pinter and maybe some screen plays?  Just food for thought...

[chad72]

20 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I hope it does because I am thinking we will need a good game from him to win this. BB is more worried about Taylor and Pittman is my guess, if Hines can have a big game we should win. Hines usually does have at least 4 or 5 games a year where he looks spectacular, I hope this is one of them.

 

That is why using 2 RBs most of the time will be useful. If they go nickel, run it with JT and if they go 3 LBs to counter our running, send Hines in motion against their safeties and LBs which would most likely be a mismatch, IMO. Plus, I would hope that if we catch them in 3 LBs, just be ready to go no huddle to tire them out (though Belichick would fake an injury to someone to stop the game to get the personnel to match). 

[NFLUp]

18 hours ago, IrsaysArmy said:

Well of course they do. They have to get yards somewhere because They refuse to let Mac know the ball. 

Uh, that was for one game.

Mac threw for 300 yards the week before against the Titans.

 

clearly you know nothing about the Patriots.

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry….    Still confused. 
 

I don’t see that anything is broken and needs to be fixed.    As I said, if Frank wanted a fullback, Ballard would get him one.   I don’t understand your position about Ballard being a doof?  

I don't think, nor said, either.  It was a comment pointing out the difference in how teams approach a stacked box.  One roster is staffed for punching through it repetitively, the other is staffed for going around it or over it.  That's all.

[DougDew]

15 hours ago, Stephen said:

Granson can definitely be featured more in the passing game.

Which would probably be at the expense of $6M Hines and MAC.  There's only one football.  And not that Granson runs the same patterns as Hines, but the rather limited patterns that Hines runs, Granson runs, and event what MAC has been running kind of means that if you choose one kind of play call, the OC will be limiting the touches of the others. 

 

As an extreme and undoable alternative, if you had one player who could do all of those things, that player would have a lot of touches and there would be less predictability in what the offense was able to do.   

[chad72]

38 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Which would probably be at the expense of $6M Hines and MAC.  There's only one football.  And not that Granson runs the same patterns as Hines, but the rather limited patterns that Hines runs, Granson runs, and event what MAC has been running kind of means that if you choose one kind of play call, the OC will be limiting the touches of the others. 

 

As an extreme and undoable alternative, if you had one player who could do all of those things, that player would have a lot of touches and there would be less predictability in what the offense was able to do.   

 

The flip side of that argument is, if we haven't showcased Granson as doing different kinds of routes that he is capable of doing, you can pigeon hole the defense's options to only what they "think" he can do and work it to your advantage.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

The flip side of that argument is, if we haven't showcased Granson as doing different kinds of routes that he is capable of doing, you can pigeon hole the defense's options to only what they "think" he can do and work it to your advantage.

True, but I think that strategy speaks to my opinion of the players Frank/Ballard get and the players BB gets.  Frank has pigeon hole players that require overthinking to get them into positions.  BB gets players that are simpler "football players" that you line up and play a variety of ways.  

[coming on strong]

To beat the patriots colts have to get other guys involved on offense . I just saw a stat where 70 percent of the colts offensive plays  ran through Pittman and Taylor . Bill will double team Pittman and stack the box leaving other guys one on one . Someone needs to beat man coverage . 

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

True, but I think that strategy speaks to my opinion of the players Frank/Ballard get and the players BB gets.  Frank has pigeon hole players that require overthinking to get them into positions.  BB gets players that are simpler "football players" that you line up and play a variety of ways.  

 

True to an extent. Edelman was a former QB, so was Kendrick Bourne, who they use for the trick WR passes sometimes. They use 3 safeties a lot, and get hybrid S/LB players that can play the run and the pass well, the versatility happens more on defense than anything else except for the occasional WR / QB aspect I mentioned above. Frank runs Hines down the middle, just like McDaniels runs James White down the middle except with different results but then James White has had more years under their system and OL schemes. McDaniels did the same with Danny Woodhead too, another RB like Hines.

 

I also think Frank tends to ignore / be conservative about what else a player can do and tends to not give them different roles, come game time. Whether those different roles are practiced or not, to explore their versatility in practice, I have no idea.

 

 

[jvan1973]

21 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

True to an extent. Edelman was a former QB, so was Kendrick Bourne, who they use for the trick WR passes sometimes. They use 3 safeties a lot, and get hybrid S/LB players that can play the run and the pass well, the versatility happens more on defense than anything else except for the occasional WR / QB aspect I mentioned above. Frank runs Hines down the middle, just like McDaniels runs James White down the middle except with different results but then James White has had more years under their system and OL schemes. McDaniels did the same with Danny Woodhead too, another RB like Hines.

 

I also think Frank tends to ignore / be conservative about what else a player can do and tends to not give them different roles, come game time. Whether those different roles are practiced or not, to explore their versatility in practice, I have no idea.

 

 

Also, troy brown at corner and Vrabel at tight end