Eberflus hired as Bears new HC *UPDATED*

[coming on strong]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would love to see Dayo, Defo, and Paye up front then we have ultra fast LB's to take care of the rest. Moore is good but in order to play a 3-4 you need 2 good cover corners that can play man.

I think the 4 -3 defense is superior in a passing league .   If you can get pressure with 4 it shuts down elite QBs completely. The problem is Ballard flopped on so many draft picks at DE. 

[Colt.45]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would play a 3-4 because we have Defo to cover the middle and I would blitz a lot more. Leonard would be awesome if he blitzed off and on. JMO. To play a 3-4 we would need another fast LB and 1 better cover corner but that is on Ballard.

To get success out of the 30 front, you need what fundamentally? A super outside backer, have we got that? How easy is that to acquire?

You need a nose tackle who's a load and can occupy that middle solo, got that in-house? How easy is one to acquire. You need a 5 tech DE. How many of those pieces have you got right now?

 

Basically, you've admitted that you'd play another defense/scheme, which is all good and which i have no issues with, but you've said "To play a 3-4 we would need another fast LB and 1 better cover corner but that is on Ballard"  which means your pieces are not there right now and so you'd have problems executing your defense TODAY. Now tell me, did Ballard ever succeed at bringing in those Des who we needed to get pressure with four?

 

See where i'm going with this?

[Bravo]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

• Flores - He'll be hired as a HC, so I he isn't even a legitimate consideration right now.
• Schwartz - For a "re-tread" he's my favorite.
• Martindale - I'm not convinced that he would be a good fit schematically and him just recently being fired from his job doesn't make me feel good about bringing him in.
• Zimmer - I really like his scheme and on paper, he's a hell of a DC. With our focus on character and locker room fit, I don't think he fits. Previous players of his do not have great things to say about how he interacted with them, mainly being extremely rude and ignoring them.

Anthony Weaver as DL coach sounds great, but I don't see why he would make a lateral move when he's the DL coach for Baltimore, or if he's even able to make that move (contractually).

 
 

Not so sure about Flores being a HC right now. I thought he would for sure but doesn’t sound like the front runner to any jobs.

 

Bring that man in for DC!!

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, coming on strong said:

I think the 4 -3 defense is superior in a passing league .   If you can get pressure with 4 it shuts down elite QBs completely. The problem is Ballard flopped on so many draft picks at DE. 

If you have 2 OLB's that are fast like a Von Miller when Denver had that great D that also can shut down teams. We don't use Leonard right and he still has been an All-pro.

[AKB]

we just need one more pass rusher. 

[Flash7]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If Flus had Freeney or Mathis then his scheme would've been perfect.

1. It would have been better for sure. No doubt.

2. If it takes All Pro Edge defenders for your scheme to work, maybe there's a flaw?

3. Even with Freeney and Mathis, Flus' scheme would allow too many easy short-mid range completions. 

4. We have a great player in DeFo, but because of lack of scheme (lack of blitzes, stunts) he's easily double teamed, negated by Flus' vanilla scheme. You still have to put your players in position to succeed. With Autry and Houston moving on to other teams, we saw an uptick in their performance/effectiveness because 1) they are playing in a better scheme; 2) playing alongside better players.

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, I'm thinking you missed the point. We blitzed him 9 times in 50+ drop backs, that's well under 20% (our season average was right at 20%), and he sliced us up.

 

A couple weeks later, the Dolphins blitzed him on over 50% of pass plays (they blitzed DBs more than 20 times). The Ravens scored 10 points.

 

So, no, we didn't really blitz him. The Dolphins did. And it worked. 

 

And overall, when your defense allows a QB to complete 91% of his attempts for 363 yards and 4 TDs in one half (plus an OT possession), and you can't even get them to third down for four straight possessions, it's a systemic failure. I mean, Lamar Jackson had a historic half+, for the record books. It's not just because we lost a couple of DBs. And when a QB is absolutely destroying your defense that way, 'this is what we do' is the lamest excuse possible. 

We blitzed him 9 times in 50 drop backs which means 9 times, we went against the whole premise of the defensive philosophy i.e. don't get beat deep i.e. don't blitz...

 

The Phins blitzed, okay what kind of personnel did they have upfront? What about cover guys? 

 

Lamar had a night for the books, and 100% it pi$$ed me off but again you cannot just say the personnel didnt matter. That means you're saying that no matter who you throw in there, they can execute. We know that is wrong.

 

If we blitzed more, did we have the guys to maintain the integrity of the backend?

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

To get success out of the 30 front, you need what fundamentally? A super outside backer, have we got that? How easy is that to acquire?

You need a nose tackle who's a load and can occupy that middle solo, got that in-house? How easy is one to acquire. You need a 5 tech DE. How many of those pieces have you got right now?

 

Basically, you've admitted that you'd play another defense/scheme, which is all good and which i have no issues with, but you've said "To play a 3-4 we would need another fast LB and 1 better cover corner but that is on Ballard"  which means your pieces are not there right now and so you'd have problems executing your defense TODAY. Now tell me, did Ballard ever succeed at bringing in those Des who we needed to get pressure with four?

 

See where i'm going with this?

I think Leonard can play in any scheme, IMO he would thrive in a 3-4. I have no proof of that or fact of that but because of his speed and talent I believe that. Yeah I would agree we would need another LB that could hold his own. Defo is a NT that could occupy the middle.

[Colt.45]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If you have 2 OLB's that are fast like a Von Miller when Denver had that great D that also can shut down teams. We don't use Leonard right and he still has been an All-pro.

Leonard is perfect for the role he plays in this defense, you ask him to play like Von Miller full time, and i promise you, it won't be a month till you want him thrown into the trashcan.

[AKB]

i think people need to realize that any defensive scheme requires great pass rushers for it to be a great scheme.  there is not a single scheme in the league that covers up that whole of missing elite pass rushers.  every single great defense throughout the history of the league is accompanied by a great rusher.  

 

it's the same thing with offense.  regardless of the scheme, if the QB can't play well against the best, then  they will always be average.  It isn't Flus fault, or Reich's fault that our edge pass rushers have been meh.  

 

drafting kwity paye reminded me of the ryan kelly draft pick.  absolutely picking based on need, and drafting a decent player at the position.  Kelly of course has developed into a good player and I expect Paye to do the same as well.  However, we wouldn't have need to go pass rush in the first and second if any of the multitude of ballard DE picks panned out. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

We blitzed him 9 times in 50 drop backs which means 9 times, we went against the whole premise of the defensive philosophy i.e. don't get beat deep i.e. don't blitz...

 

The Phins blitzed, okay what kind of personnel did they have upfront? What about cover guys? 

 

Lamar had a night for the books, and 100% it pi$$ed me off but again you cannot just say the personnel didnt matter. That means you're saying that no matter who you throw in there, they can execute. We know that is wrong.

 

If we blitzed more, did we have the guys to maintain the integrity of the backend?

 

We blitzed him less, percentage-wise, than we blitz over the course of the season. 

 

You're just dug in. The worst defensive performance of the season -- maybe of all his four years as DC -- and you can't be convinced that it had anything to do with his refusal to make adjustments. Cool deal.

[Les Poulains]

Hard to analyze this news, really. I think this is neither good news or a massive loss.

 

Congrats to Eberflus, I guess. One of the most historic franchises in the league.

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, bravo4460 said:

 
 

Not so sure about Flores being a HC right now. I thought he would for sure but doesn’t sound like the front runner to any jobs.

 

Bring that man in for DC!!

 

It is strange that this is happening. If that is the case, I am sure we should interview him, he will mix and match fronts very well.

[Fisticuffs111]

Gonna guess it’s either Lovie, Kris Richard, or our safeties coach after reading up on him. He has a long history with us. I actually think he’s the most likely.
 

Not sure who I’d prefer, none of them seem like very exciting hires.

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

 

Won’t switching from 43 to 34 require a lot of personel change? I don’t think that’s what Ballard wants unless he feels he’s stumbled on a 34 genius. 

[Colt.45]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We blitzed him less, percentage-wise, than we blitz over the course of the season. 

 

You're just dug in. The worst defensive performance of the season -- maybe of all his four years as DC -- and you can't be convinced that it had anything to do with his refusal to make adjustments. Cool deal.

I'm not. Im asking why we refused to blitz, I'm asking fundamental questions.

 

You're refusing to acknowledge that the backend matters too. Who's digging in?

 

When you blitz, is there a price to pay in your backend or not? 

[DougDew]

Did anybody who is criticizing Flus against BAL watch the game, or are they simply looking at stats?

 

The corners went down in the 3rd quarter.  Flus did everything.  The new guy got beat when he was on man coverage.  Know what, no more man coverage, duh.

 

Flus dropped the DEs into coverage and sent the ILBs on a rush.  Know what, ILBs get stuffed by one blocker and AQM can't cover anybody because he's a high effort slow guy. 

 

Stunt.  Tried it.  AQM is a high effort guy that's too slow to take the longer path.

 

My corners cant cover man

My lightweight ILB blitzers get stuffed by one player.

My defensive ends are too slow to drop back or to take the long path.

 

Golly, may as well go back to soft zone and rushing 4, since that's the only thing the talent allows me to do.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Colt.45 said:

I'm not. Im asking why we refused to blitz, I'm asking fundamental questions.

 

You're refusing to acknowledge that the backend matters too. Who's digging in?

 

When you blitz, is there a price to pay in your backend or not? 

 

How could that price possibly be higher than 30-33, 363 yards, 4 TDs, and zero third downs? 

[Indyfan4life]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How could that price possibly be higher than 30-33, 363 yards, 4 TDs, and zero third downs? 

Stop. That stat line physically hurts me.

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How could that price possibly be higher than 30-33, 363 yards, 4 TDs, and zero third downs? 

 

Okay, so you're saying compromise the fundamental premise of your defense, and do that while knowing that you don't have the pieces just for the sake of doing differently? 

 

In my opinion, bad idea.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Did anybody who is criticizing Flus against BAL watch the game, or are they simply looking at stats?

 

The corners went down in the 3rd quarter.  Flus did everything.  The new guy got beat when he was on man coverage.  Know what, no more man coverage, duh.

 

Flus dropped the DEs into coverage and sent the ILBs on a rush.  Know what, ILBs get stuffed by one blocker and AQM can't cover anybody because he's a high effort slow guy. 

 

Stunt.  Tried it.  AQM is a high effort guy that's too slow to take the longer path.

 

My corners cant cover man

My lightweight ILB blitzers get stuffed by one player.

My defensive ends are too slow to drop back or to take the long path.

 

Golly, may as well go back to soft zone and rushing 4, since that's the only thing the talent allows me to do.

All we had to do is slow them down. There wasn’t enough time. Just stop one of the 2 pt conversions. That’s it.

[MikeCurtis]

23 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

i think people need to realize that any defensive scheme requires great pass rushers for it to be a great scheme.  

 

 

Bingo!

 

You nailed it

 

THATS why we also need to get a FA DE that can wreck an offense in the offseason..... 

 

When we get a pass rush, ALL of our DBs and LBs play better

 

If the opposing team doubles up on our shiny new DE, Buckner gets better results , Paye gets better results, Dayo gets better results......

 

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

All we had to do is slow them down. There wasn’t enough time. Just stop one of the 2 pt conversions. That’s it.

Listen, once again, if you and I know that. Do you not think the coach does too?

 

I know it pains them more than it does us, they get fired for stuff like this, while all we do is complain and it doesnt affect our everyday existence. If we had maybe just one starter instead of a third stringer, or if Darius isn't hobbling around, or if the pass rush is ripe....maybe it's different.

 

That game was annoying because in my eyes, that was probably Wentz's best showing of the season. I'll have to review his season but that's the game that comes to mind first....and the defense wasted it. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

All we had to do is slow them down. There wasn’t enough time. Just stop one of the 2 pt conversions. That’s it.

Rhodes left in the 3Q.  Even Rodgers was in and out.  I don't think RYS even played.  This was the game where during the week we added guys like Bo Pete and the safeties who were off the street.  AQM dropped back into coverage.

 

The Ravens players beat our players straight up, in every different way we tried to stop them.

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Okay, so you're saying compromise the fundamental premise of your defense, and do that while knowing that you don't have the pieces just for the sake of doing differently? 

 

In my opinion, bad idea.

 

But what's the worst that could happen? 33-33? 400 yards? 5 TDs? Not even get to second down?

 

They did exactly what you're saying they had no choice but to do, and it failed miserably. You're not even allowing for the possibility that using a different approach -- similar to what other opponents did -- would have been more successful. 

 

And I want to make my position clear at this point, because the more back and forth there is, the more a discussion gets relegated to the far extremes and minute details. I am NOT anti Eberflus. I think he did a lot of good things, and has a lot of good qualities. The Colts have mostly struggled against the run for almost the entire time I've been a fan. Under Eberflus, we're actually a really good run defense. His demeanor, approach, player accountability (without having to scream in faces on the sideline), etc., are all really good traits, and I think they'll serve him well as a head coach. 

 

But I also watched our defense struggle against basically every good QB we played for four years (with a few exceptions). And worse, we made mediocre QBs like Gardnew Minshew look like All Pros. The last two games of the season, opposing offenses scripted their opening drives against us and had ultimate success, because they knew exactly what we were going to do. 

 

I think we need to vary our coverages and pressures more often and more effectively, and I don't think Eberflus would ever have used the variations to the degrees I'd like to see. The Ravens game (and again, they beat us in the second half the same way in 2020) is an example of why I feel that way. So in that way, I'm glad we have an opportunity to bring in a new perspective at DC. I also recognize that we could do a lot worse than Eberflus, so I know we can't just plug in any old guy and expect the defense to be better. And at the same time, we need better personnel.

 

But I don't believe in allowing good to be the enemy of great. I think Eberflus is good. That's not good enough. 

[Myles]

3 hours ago, gnet550 said:

Congratulations to Matt....I hope this isn't a case of be careful what you wish for.  Obviously Eberflus didn't always appeal to everyone, biggest issue being Red Zone D, but he wasn't near as bad as some people think.  I hope we get a DC who is more of an attack mode type.  Hopefully we can keep getting the TO's like we did this year, but be a little more aggressive.

I agree.  I do think this has the potential of being good.   We have lots of young guys on defense that have trained under Eberflus, now they get to train with another.  Maybe being able to add some skills.

 

That's being optimistic.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, DougDew said:

Rhodes left in the 3Q.  Even Rodgers was in and out.  This is was the game where during the week we added guys like Bo Pete and the safeties who were off the street.  AQM dropped back into coverage.

 

The Ravens players beat our players straight up, in every way we tried to stop them.

 

Backups werent prepared. That goes back to Eberflus. It’s not like we only had a one TD lead. 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Stop. That stat line physically hurts me.

 

Others seem to be fine with it.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Backups werent prepared. That goes back to Eberflus. It’s not like we only had a one TD lead. 

John Brown beating Bo Pete one on one was definitely Flus' fault. 

 

He should have stayed in soft zone so it wouldn't have taken the Ravens 20 seconds to score.  If it took them only one more minute to score by playing soft zone, we would have won.

 

Its nonsense to do something different just for the sake of it, when you should know that its doomed to fail.

[AKB]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But what's the worst that could happen? 33-33? 400 yards? 5 TDs? Not even get to second down?

 

They did exactly what you're saying they had no choice but to do, and it failed miserably. You're not even allowing for the possibility that using a different approach -- similar to what other opponents did -- would have been more successful. 

 

And I want to make my position clear at this point, because the more back and forth there is, the more a discussion gets relegated to the far extremes and minute details. I am NOT anti Eberflus. I think he did a lot of good things, and has a lot of good qualities. The Colts have mostly struggled against the run for almost the entire time I've been a fan. Under Eberflus, we're actually a really good run defense. His demeanor, approach, player accountability (without having to scream in faces on the sideline), etc., are all really good traits, and I think they'll serve him well as a head coach. 

 

But I also watched our defense struggle against basically every good QB we played for four years (with a few exceptions). And worse, we made mediocre QBs like Gardnew Minshew look like All Pros. The last two games of the season, opposing offenses scripted their opening drives against us and had ultimate success, because they knew exactly what we were going to do. 

 

I think we need to vary our coverages and pressures more often and more effectively, and I don't think Eberflus would ever have used the variations to the degrees I'd like to see. The Ravens game (and again, they beat us in the second half the same way in 2020) is an example of why I feel that way. So in that way, I'm glad we have an opportunity to bring in a new perspective at DC. I also recognize that we could do a lot worse than Eberflus, so I know we can't just plug in any old guy and expect the defense to be better. And at the same time, we need better personnel.

 

But I don't believe in allowing good to be the enemy of great. I think Eberflus is good. That's not good enough. 

I agree with everything you are saying except one thing.  that bringing in someone else is going to change what we do.  this defense has been groomed and ultimately, drafted for this type of scheme.  how much of a difference are you really expecting out of our next DC?  seems a bit hopeful. 

[#12.]

58 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Here is a link of the Colts defensive rankings going back to the 2000 season. Here are a few takeaways:

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/colts-defensive-rankings-by-year-2000-to-2021

 

1. Our defense in 2005 was by far our best defense, allowing only 15.4 PPG and a total of 247 points throughout the season.
2. Our second, third, and fourth best defenses were 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. 
3. During the Grigson and Ballard eras, our best defensive ranking came in 2013 where the Colts allowed 21 PPG and a total of 336 points throughout the season. This was under Grigson/Manusky.
4. Under FLus, (2017 - 2021) the Colts defense had their best ranking in 2018, allowing 21.5 PPG and a total of 244 points scored throughout the season. 2021 was a similar good year. Overall, on average, a Ballard/Flus led defense was better than a Grigson/Manusky led defense, but pails in comparison to the Polian/Meeks defenses.
5. Comparing all of the Colts defenses over the past 20 years has shown that you need Edge rushers like Freeney and Mathis to make the motor run. (Obviously).

 

 

Scoring has gone up, so you have to take that into account.  The Manning era defenses were not good, highly susceptible to the run, susceptible to getting smacked around in the playoffs.  Every step of the way I felt the 2005 D was fraudulent, and they proved me right in the playoffs, allowing Roethlisberger to drive the field twice and take a 2 TD lead in the first quarter.

 

None of the Colt defenses from these different eras have been good, but if I had to choose one, I would probably choose the Eberflus defense.  Having said that, I'm still half glad Eberflus is gone, so I suppose that says it all about Indy era Colts defenses.

[Colt.45]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

But what's the worst that could happen? 33-33? 400 yards? 5 TDs? Not even get to second down?

 

They did exactly what you're saying they had no choice but to do, and it failed miserably. You're not even allowing for the possibility that using a different approach -- similar to what other opponents did -- would have been more successful. 

 

And I want to make my position clear at this point, because the more back and forth there is, the more a discussion gets relegated to the far extremes and minute details. I am NOT anti Eberflus. I think he did a lot of good things, and has a lot of good qualities. The Colts have mostly struggled against the run for almost the entire time I've been a fan. Under Eberflus, we're actually a really good run defense. His demeanor, approach, player accountability (without having to scream in faces on the sideline), etc., are all really good traits, and I think they'll serve him well as a head coach. 

 

But I also watched our defense struggle against basically every good QB we played for four years (with a few exceptions). And worse, we made mediocre QBs like Gardnew Minshew look like All Pros. The last two games of the season, opposing offenses scripted their opening drives against us and had ultimate success, because they knew exactly what we were going to do. 

 

I think we need to vary our coverages and pressures more often and more effectively, and I don't think Eberflus would ever have used the variations to the degrees I'd like to see. The Ravens game (and again, they beat us in the second half the same way in 2020) is an example of why I feel that way. So in that way, I'm glad we have an opportunity to bring in a new perspective at DC. I also recognize that we could do a lot worse than Eberflus, so I know we can't just plug in any old guy and expect the defense to be better. And at the same time, we need better personnel.

 

But I don't believe in allowing good to be the enemy of great. I think Eberflus is good. That's not good enough. 

Hey, this is a good back and forth. I'm enjoying the discussion and hoping to learn and maybe show my viewpoint. No aggro here.

 

You say we struggled against every good QB and Lawrence. Yup, we all saw it. What was the common thread? we didnt get a pass rush going. Those QBs got the ball out fast and when they didnt our pass rush couldn't get home on time even when they blitzed.

 

You're countering that we needed to vary coverages, and pressures. Okay fine, lets say we agree that this should have happened. Is varying coverages easier with first string guys than third stringers? That's a talent question. Do you not still need a semblance of pass rush to get home to muddy the QB's day up? That's again a talent question.

If you vary coverages and pressures and confuse the QB BUT your pass rush isn't winning then fundamentally the QB still has time in the pocket to dissect your defense even if you've switched things up because he knows not to pay attention to what you're doing because at it's core your talent isn't good enough to beat his protection and so you won't touch him, is that not true? And if he understands that your pressure won't win, and your coverage is dodgy, and you do NOTHING to disprove that impression then yeah he feels confident, his clock slows down and he picks you apart regardless of what you're doing. Slow, fast, whatever you do, you need to get home eventually and ask yourself whether we got home. The QB is sitting on the bench with access to information that tells him your secondary coverage is bad, and that he has time because your pass rushers won't win so if he just slows down, he can eat you up. He's getting told not to worry about the twists and whatever, and to set his protection and trust that they will win the line battles, and when that man is not even having to clean his uniform, that rings true.

 

If you vary coverages and the QB sees that he has more time to process BECAUSE no matter what you're doing, your guys are not winning the battles upfront, his mental processing/clock doesnt ever get to that sped up phase. And he understands that if he just takes the time, he can pick you apart. Can we agree on that? 

 

Also are the guys we have good enough to run schemes with different coverages and pressures as you say? Is that not still a talent issue when the GM has been bringing in guys to run this more simple scheme? 

 

I keep circling back to talent. In that Baltimore game, the guy tried everything. We didnt have the horses. It sucked then and sucks thinking of it now but when we trot out Mathis and Freeney, i'll be willing to concede schematic failures more willingly, i cant bring myself to do that knowing the personnel deficits we put out there. Scheme can only get you so far in sports (ANY sport), at the end of the day, you'd better have some talent in whatever key areas are needed to execute your scheme. In our case, it doesnt matter the scheme because the baseline is the pass rush isn't there. Is that not a talent issue?

[Colt.45]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Others seem to be fine with it.

Now you're throwing shots and is that necessary?

 

Just as you say you think Eberflus is good, i've also stated that the Baltimore game made me sick. What i'm trying to get to is the fundamental why. It doesnt mean i'm okay with making scrubs look like Joe Montana, those two things can exist together no?

[Colts1324]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I bet the Bears don't win more than 8 games with him as coach unless some major moves happens with them.

I agree I want Flores, if not, then Zimmer.

People that complain about Eberflus & yet are calling for Mike Zimmer to replace him confuse me. 
 

Zimmer’s defense has progressively gotten worse. He played the same soft zone coverage that allowed the DETROIT LIONS to beat them on a simple curl route on the very last play. 

[Colt.45]

@Superman you mentioned those last two games of the season. I was in the air for the Raiders game and missed it, but i saw the Jags game, and i assume the Raiders game had same issues where the QB was just very comfortable in the pocket and passed short/intermediate FAST i.e. death by 1000 paper cuts.

 

But let me ask, was our pass rush getting home versus Carr? I know it wasnt against Lawrence. If this Raiders game went like the others we've played against Derek Carr, then the answer is likely no. Which means the QB was conditioned to sit back and dissect us, and rarely did our pass rush get home enough to change his mind. And even if we blitzed, the guy still got the fast ACCURATE passes out to whoever his target was because he knows he's not getting hit.

 

Fundamentally football is an easy game, then you need talent. You can make things as cloudy as you want on paper, but if you don't hit that QB then in this league, teams will complete stuff on you. We already know that the main issue with this defense is we have no pass rush....but wait, you still need a pass rush with any other defense. Sounds simple but it's the truth. You can put up all the window dressing you want on your defense, but if these PROFESSIONAL players sit back on the bench, after watching all that tape during the week, and know that no matter what dressing you put down, your pass rush isn't 5hi7, they will feel comfortable and eat you up.

 

 

And to take it even further, when your offense fails to score and put indirect pressure on that opposing QB to rush his game or take unnecessary risks, well i don't think it's that hard to see why those last two games went the way they did. I think Indy is almost always a bottom ten pass rush win rate team (someone correct me on this) and that ties directly into a QBs mindset.

[PRnum1]

Use the Schwartz Frank !

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

This is actually a really good example of a game that highlights Eberflus' failure to adjust, IMO. Lamar Jackson did the same thing in the second half of that game that he did in the second half of our game against him in 2020. Except he was even better this time. He was 30-33 for 363 yards and 4TDs after halftime. There's no excusing that.

 

And then Lamar spent the rest of the season getting absolutely shut down by heavy blitzes, because he struggles to see, diagnose, and react to pressure, and their OL struggles to pick up extra rushers. The rest of the Ravens opponents figured out that they would rather live and die by blitzing Lamar, because it forces him to do something he's not good at, than sit back and play coverage. 

 

Edit: We blitzed Lamar 9 times in that game. On their final four possessions, they scored 4 TDs, and never even got to third down. 

WE suck at blitzing.  That's a reality that a  lot of people ain't facing.  WE DON'T Have the personnel to do it effecitively.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

WE suck at blitzing.  That's a reality that a  lot of people ain't facing.  WE DON'T Have the personnel to do it effecitively.

We have two very good blitzers. I understand Leonard’s ankle probably limited that this season but that just isn’t true.

[Colt.45]

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

WE suck at blitzing.  That's a reality that a  lot of people ain't facing.  WE DON'T Have the personnel to do it effecitively.

 

This season, a Falcons beat reporter (who said he coaches high school ball also) went hard at Dean Pees defense. Said all this stuff about why they didnt blitz, blah blah blah.

 

Pees  took the time to school him on FUNDAMENTALS. Pees Asked him a simple numbers question....when i blitz, does that leave less men to cover behind and does that mean my backend is open? And if it is, do i have guys who can cover, are the guys young, are they limited, etc. 

 

The video is somewhere around Basically the reporter sat his * back down and kept quiet. It's easy to say blitz more, get more this and that, but that notion/sentiment fundamentally is tricky because it ignores the defense you've built as an organization. And the joy of sports is you cannot build a system that meets EVERY need. You have to make concessions whether talent ie. building your team, or schematically ie in our defense, we know teams might complete passes on us, and especially so when we got no pass rush.

[#12.]

4 minutes ago, Nickster said:

WE suck at blitzing.  That's a reality that a  lot of people ain't facing.  WE DON'T Have the personnel to do it effecitively.

 

According to Frank, with our athletic, long-armed LBers, that was part of the plan - getting a pass rush from your LBers.  Outside of Leonard's rookie year, it never materialized.  They also had plans of using Banogu at LB.  Never happened.