Colts vs Jags post game thread

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

12 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

It would probably make a big difference if AR had a true WR1 to throw to. Instead Ballard has given us these guys. 
 

Pierce (2)

Strachan 

Pittman (2)*

Patmon

Campbell (2)

Fountain 

Cain 
 

*solid 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes me mad is trashing Ballard. Ballard has made some investment in the draft at WR.  He is trying.

[Superman]

38 minutes ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

I'll never be convinced elite running backs and adequate running game aren't important in todays NFL. 

 

The argument is not that an adequate running game isn't important in the NFL. Running the ball is still very important.

 

The argument isn't even that elite running backs aren't important. If you have one, use him.

 

The question is whether you should pay premium money to an elite back, or if you should replace that back with a lower cost player in the draft, or with a committee. And that question exists because a) rushing production is largely replaceable, and b) running backs have a short shelf life in the NFL.

[Myles]

Predictable.

Lose first game of the season again. - 10 years in a row

Lose in Jax

[Lifetime Colt]

16 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

No wonder I quit listening to bring the juice. They were trashing smith. 

I have stopped listing to them too, just fans, like to cry alot, and have Madden type outlook on just sign more guys solutions.

[Lifetime Colt]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The argument is not that an adequate running game isn't important in the NFL. Running the ball is still very important.

 

The argument isn't even that elite running backs aren't important. If you have one, use him.

 

The question is whether you should pay premium money to an elite back, or if you should replace that back with a lower cost player in the draft, or with a committee. And that question exists because a) rushing production is largely replaceable, and b) running backs have a short shelf life in the NFL.

Agree, and add that quarterbacks that now approach 25% of a teams salary cap annually, force a salary reduction somewhere.  

[Fluke_33]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

it's EPA/play... expected points added per play... 

https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/

 

It's one of the main "advanced" stats

 

Thank you!  I figured it was something real that I missed.  (Like using the word fire now instead of cool)

[1959Colts]

 

I watched the game again on reply.

Not a bad overall performance.

 

Defense played well. Buckner and Franklin were outstanding.

 

The d line had a nice game, as did Speed.

Leonard played ok. If Leonard avoids injury, he should get better as the season moves along and can accel with this group around him.

 

I thought our young group of db's played decent enough.

 

 

Offense performance was up and down.

 

Richardson looks good. Showed some poise. A few inaccurate throws, but a good amount on target. His running ability is outstanding. Considering his age and lack of playing time in college, his first game in the NFL... Quite impressive.

 

Running game struggled, with a few decent carries here and there. Would have liked to seen more of Hull. Hoping his injury is minor. Jackson did not have a good game. His best run was called back on a (penalty). Although, he did make a few gains, and should be given credit where it is due. Jake Funk had a nice game. Funk looks like a better 3rd down back (over Jackson) good receiver out of the backfield.

 

Outside of Pittman, WR group showed little. Downs made a play or two, but did not catch a couple as well. Not much from Alec Pierce.

 

Granson made some positive receptions at TE, but he left Josh Allen run right by on a blitz, clobbering our RB in the backfield. 

Andrew Ogletree, showed a glimpse of greatness early, only to get injured once again. Wish they would had Will Mallory as an option (inactive)  Mo Alie-Cox appears to be no more than a blocker at TE. He did poorly in coverage, on the big punt return by Jamal Agnew. Not exactly the guy I like to see covering punts. 

 

After watching the game over, I thought offensive line, for the most part, protected decently. The Jaguars pressures mainly came on blitzes and stunts, allowing unblocked rushers to disrupt AR5

I noticed Raimann did well. I believe Smith and Fries may have got pushed around on a play or two early, but in general, the line held up.

However, there just were not many holes to run through. Maybe Jacksonville is a very good defense against the run? Or else, the Colts need to improve the run blocking. Probably a combination of the two factors.

 

As for Coaching, I like the enthusiasm Steichen gives. The team appeared to me, to play with more heart than I have seen in a long time. I do not like the way Shane seems to always prefers to go for the 4th downs, rather than punt or kick the field goal. But since it was also his first game as head coach, he should be given a pass (on game management) this week

 

 

[SOMDColtsfan]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The argument is not that an adequate running game isn't important in the NFL. Running the ball is still very important.

 

The argument isn't even that elite running backs aren't important. If you have one, use him.

 

The question is whether you should pay premium money to an elite back, or if you should replace that back with a lower cost player in the draft, or with a committee. And that question exists because a) rushing production is largely replaceable, and b) running backs have a short shelf life in the NFL.

Agree. And agree. Mainly my comment stems from the view I read everywhere, running backs are replaceable because its a passing league. As if don't need to be able to run the ball.  Hull got hurt before we could see what the newly drafted low cost replacement could do. And Moss was inactive.  A committee of 3 low cost, mediocre Deon Jacksons is not in our best interest either. A healthy dose of a healthy, elite JT paired with AR would cure a lot of the Colts ailments. We need JT

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, Matabix said:

Listening to the after game presser by both Shane and AR I'm hyped that I think we are secure at both QB and Head coach. Both rookies, but also both will improve. I think our CBs will be ok, but not great. Kenny had to stick with Ridley the whole 2nd half. It helped but took him away from nickel alot. I thought signing JT over Pitt was the way to go. I was wrong. Need to sign them both along with Grove. Pierce needs to show up. Hopefully Pitt doesn't cost us over 15 mil/ year. Think we should be able to get Grove and Kenny for around 9 mil/ year with more years on the contract.

 

Start Freeland and move Smith inside. I'm going to pound this drum all year. 

I do hope Freeland earns the RT spot. We need more power inside than Fries can generate.

[Matabix]

1 minute ago, throwing BBZ said:

I do hope Freeland earns the RT spot. We need more power inside than Fries can generate.

Exactly when Smith gets beat it's speed rushers. Fries is constantly getting overpowered. Smith is a good tackle, but could be a great guard. Freeland has tons more upside than Fries. I would rather see Fries as 6th lineman. Still got images of Freeland outrunning everyone in the preseason on that turnover. 

[Solid84]

6 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

To be fair, A LOT of Pittman’s yac came from that screenplay. 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

Agree. And agree. Mainly my comment stems from the view I read everywhere, running backs are replaceable because its a passing league. As if don't need to be able to run the ball.  Hull got hurt before we could see what the newly drafted low cost replacement could do. And Moss was inactive.  A committee of 3 low cost, mediocre Deon Jacksons is not in our best interest either. A healthy dose of a healthy, elite JT paired with AR would cure a lot of the Colts ailments. We need JT

 

To the bolded, I think that's a misrepresentation of the actual argument against paying RBs premium money. 

 

And anyone looking at the backs we trotted out there yesterday and pointing to them as proof that we MUST have an elite back is ignoring the fact that we can put together a much better RB room than that, without paying top of market money. (I also think the run blocking was pretty bad...)

 

I'd absolutely rather have JT than what we had yesterday. But paying JT premium money is probably not the most cost effective use of cap resources, and it's probably going to result in us having an overpaid player on our hands within the next 2-3 years.

[Moosejawcolt]

Lombardi said Richardson showed some brillance in the game but doesn't think the Colts are good enough on defense to get control of the game. Agreed. I think thr narrative that has gone on for a long time that this defence gets gassed is rubbish. 

 

[richard pallo]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, I think that's a misrepresentation of the actual argument against paying RBs premium money. 

 

And anyone looking at the backs we trotted out there yesterday and pointing to them as proof that we MUST have an elite back is ignoring the fact that we can put together a much better RB room than that, without paying top of market money. (I also think the run blocking was pretty bad...)

 

I'd absolutely rather have JT than what we had yesterday. But paying JT premium money is probably not the most cost effective use of cap resources, and it's probably going to result in us having an overpaid player on our hands within the next 2-3 years.

Probably probably.  Who knows what the future brings.  He’s our only proven offensive weapon worth a new contract right now.  Securing playmakers is not easy.  And we have one in JT.  We have a quarterback on a rookie contract.  Now is the time to secure a 24 year old star player.   In 3 or 4 years we will be up against it when it’s AR’s turn.  If he was 27 or 28 I wouldn’t but 24 absolutely.  I’ll take my chances with the bird in the hand.   13m a year.  It’s a * hole in the snow for us right now.  Yesterday should open up every one’s eyes.  Time for Ballard to get a deal in place .

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Probably probably.  Who knows what the future brings.  He’s our only proven offensive weapon worth a new contract right now.  Securing playmakers is not easy.  And we have one in JT.  We have a quarterback on a rookie contract.  Now is the time to secure a 24 year old star player.   In 3 or 4 years we will be up against it when it’s AR’s turn.  If he was 27 or 28 I wouldn’t but 24 absolutely.  I’ll take my chances with the bird in the hand.   13m a year.  It’s a * hole in the snow for us right now.  Yesterday should open up every one’s eyes.  Time for Ballard to get a deal in place .

 

Disagree with this stance, but it's irrelevant. This is a philosophical disagreement about RB value in a changing NFL landscape.

 

In practice, the Colts don't seem to care. Both Ballard and Irsay have implied and outright stated that they want Taylor, and are willing to discuss a second contract with him. So the question about paying a RB a second contract at premium value is probably not pertinent, because the Colts are apparently willing to do it.

 

But so far, JT hasn't shown up and participated throughout the offseason, he's still talking about ankle pain months after he should have been fully healthy, and he still has an active trade demand.

[NFLfan]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 rushing production is largely replaceable,

 

I don't think yesterday's Colts game showed that. Both the Colts and the Vikings did not have last year's starting RB in their respective games yesterday and both could have used them.

[bluebombers87]

9 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I don't think yesterday's Colts game showed that. Both the Colts and the Vikings did not have last year's starting RB in their respective games yesterday and both could have used them.

I think in the colts case, having your 3rd string RB as your number one option was a bigger issue. A decent number one, (not even a JT caliber back) would have made a bigger difference.

 

Instead our starter was someone who had no business being a number 3.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

I don't think yesterday's Colts game showed that. Both the Colts and the Vikings did not have last year's starting RB in their respective games yesterday and both could have used them.

 

I didn't watch much of the Vikings game, but maybe Mattison is just not very good?

 

The Colts had a back out there who doesn't seem to be very good, but they also didn't block for him.

 

And again, there's quite a bit of space between between a premium back like JT and an undrafted guy like Deon Jackson, who we all expected to be our third back this year. I don't want to play the extremes here.

 

Saying 'rushing production is largely replaceable' includes the assumption that we're using good players that can be acquired at less cost, not bargain bin third stringers.

[richard pallo]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Disagree with this stance, but it's irrelevant. This is a philosophical disagreement about RB value in a changing NFL landscape.

 

In practice, the Colts don't seem to care. Both Ballard and Irsay have implied and outright stated that they want Taylor, and are willing to discuss a second contract with him. So the question about paying a RB a second contract at premium value is probably not pertinent, because the Colts are apparently willing to do it.

 

But so far, JT hasn't shown up and participated throughout the offseason, he's still talking about ankle pain months after he should have been fully healthy, and he still has an active trade demand.

That’s the good news.  The Colts want Taylor and are willing to pay him a second contract.  That’s how many of us feel.  You want to keep your best players especially playmakers.  Hopefully they can agree to a deal soon.  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I have no problem paying premium money to a premium, elite playmaker that makes your team better and increases your chances of winning. Especially when said player gets 20-30 touches per game and gets tough yards and can also score 6 points from anywhere on the field. Not to mention influence defenses and help and take pressure off a green, inexperienced rookie QB. 

Also, the gap between JT and the rbs the colts ran out yesterday was extremely extreme. At least field average 'dime a dozen' rbs if not paying JT. Lol

 

We've seen many times other teams get and sign star after star and manipulate the cap and get and pay their man. A few $million up or down to a player shouldn't be a hinderence to a team trying to win..... If their not in 'win mode' then its understandable to field a lower talent level team and be amongst the league leaders in cap space. But in that case ticket prices should be discounted(beer,hot dogs too) and out of market fans should get NFL Sunday ticket at a bargain price, should they still decide to watch. 

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't watch much of the Vikings game, but maybe Mattison is just not very good?

 

The Colts had a back out there who doesn't seem to be very good, but they also didn't block for him.

 

And again, there's quite a bit of space between between a premium back like JT and an undrafted guy like Deon Jackson, who we all expected to be our third back this year. I don't want to play the extremes here.

 

Saying 'rushing production is largely replaceable' includes the assumption that we're using good players that can be acquired at less cost, not bargain bin third stringers.

For me I’ll take great over good anytime.  I would rather play a great player 13m than a couple of good players 4m.  Taylor or Hines?  Taylor or Moss?  Taylor or Hunt?  Taylor or Robinson?  I’ll take Taylor.  He’s the great player.  You get what you pay for.  Hopefully our relationship with Taylor is still salvageable.

[joeb]

14 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I have no problem paying premium money to a premium, elite playmaker that makes your team better and increases your chances of winning. Especially when said player gets 20-30 touches per game and gets tough yards and can also score 6 points from anywhere on the field. Not to mention influence defenses and help and take pressure off a green, inexperienced rookie QB. 

Also, the gap between JT and the rbs the colts ran out yesterday was extremely extreme. At least field average 'dime a dozen' rbs if not paying JT. Lol

 

We've seen many times other teams get and sign star after star and manipulate the cap and get and pay their man. A few $million up or down to a player shouldn't be a hinderence to a team trying to win..... If their not in 'win mode' then its understandable to field a lower talent level team and be amongst the league leaders in cap space. But in that case ticket prices should be discounted(beer,hot dogs too) and out of market fans should get NFL Sunday ticket at a bargain price, should they still decide to watch. 

I'm on board with paying Taylor. We need him bad. He's in his prime also.

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't watch much of the Vikings game, but maybe Mattison is just not very good?

 

The Colts had a back out there who doesn't seem to be very good, but they also didn't block for him.

 

And again, there's quite a bit of space between between a premium back like JT and an undrafted guy like Deon Jackson, who we all expected to be our third back this year. I don't want to play the extremes here.

 

Saying 'rushing production is largely replaceable' includes the assumption that we're using good players that can be acquired at less cost, not bargain bin third stringers.

 

I do get what you're saying. I really do. However, I don't believe a team should replace its RB only because the RB's production could possibly be matched by another RB.

 

I like Mattison but he is not Cook. We would have retained Cook had our cap situation been different. He did not want to take less money, which I understand. JT is younger than Cook and he was the best offensive player on the Colts. I hope the Colts retain him. It will maximize Richardson's and the team's chances of winning. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If what we saw from Richardson yesterday as a rookie is his floor colts are in really good shape.

[Solid84]

24 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

For me I’ll take great over good anytime.  I would rather play a great player 13m than a couple of good players 4m.  Taylor or Hines?  Taylor or Moss?  Taylor or Hunt?  Taylor or Robinson?  I’ll take Taylor.  He’s the great player.  You get what you pay for.  Hopefully our relationship with Taylor is still salvageable.

I’d rather have Moss, Kareem Hunt and a new RG all of which (and more) we could’ve had for $13m.

[joeb]

55 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

If what we saw from Richardson yesterday as a rookie is his floor colts are in really good shape.

I would like to agree with that. It's 1 game only. The audition went pretty good. He won't last past the end of September if he doesn't start sliding. He took some good shots.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

For me I’ll take great over good anytime.  I would rather play a great player 13m than a couple of good players 4m.  Taylor or Hines?  Taylor or Moss?  Taylor or Hunt?  Taylor or Robinson?  I’ll take Taylor.  He’s the great player.  You get what you pay for.  Hopefully our relationship with Taylor is still salvageable.

 

I appreciate the platitudes. I think real life is different. 

[SOMDColtsfan]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

I’d rather have Moss, Kareem Hunt and a new RG all of which (and more) we could’ve had for $13m.

That might be enough to offset a JT/AR combination, but I cant help but to want to see them both on the field together..thats the stuff that keeps defensive coordinators up late at night. Something we haven't seen in forever

[ShuteAt168]

6 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

What makes me mad is trashing Ballard. Ballard has made some investment in the draft at WR.  He is trying.

Not sure that was trashing. Those are the WR he’s picked. We don’t have a WR1 after six years. The NFL isn’t a “trying” business — you know that. 

[Two_pound]

I was watching the game again last night and was keeping an eye on receivers running routes. Now, I know it is hard to see everything from the qb position on every play(that's why you have "progressions"). But on the play Ogletree got hurt Pierce had run by his man, who was in single coverage, down the left sideline Richardson should have taken a shot  there. On a play in the 3rd quarter Richardson threw a short slant to Pittman for the first down while Pierce was open 12 yards more downfield on a crossing pattern where he could have turned up field and possibly scored because there was no one else back there for the jags. Downs was open more often than he was targeted. This narrative that Colts can't get separation is flat out wrong. I don't understand why we didn't take more "shots" downfield, if you hand off on first down and get stuffed for no gain it's 2nd and 10. If you take a deep shot and it's incomplete it's 2nd and 10, but maybe you can loosen the defense a bit if your at least trying. The Jags scored a td on a throw down the right sideline where Baker had pretty good coverage and it took a spectacular catch and they had a big gain in the 3rd qtr. on a lob down the right sideline where we had good coverage and the jag made a good catch. Sometimes you just have to throw the ball down field so your guy can make a play for you, while stretching the defense. I know Steichen doesn't want to open up the whole playbook for Richardson yet, but a couple of deep shots a game wouldn't hurt.

[DougDew]

57 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

But on the play Ogletree got hurt Pierce had run by his man, who was in single coverage, down the left sideline Richardson should have taken a shot  there. On a play in the 3rd quarter Richardson threw a short slant to Pittman for the first down while Pierce was open 12 yards more downfield on a crossing pattern where he could have turned up field and possibly scored because there was no one else back there for the jags. Downs was open more often than he was targeted. This narrative that Colts can't get separation is flat out wrong. I don't understand why we didn't take more "shots" downfield,

 

58 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Sometimes you just have to throw the ball down field so your guy can make a play for you, while stretching the defense. I know Steichen doesn't want to open up the whole playbook for Richardson yet, but a couple of deep shots a game wouldn't hurt.

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, or you are blending some thoughts, but are you blaming SS for AR not throwing the ball to wide open WRs down the field more?....and falling short of criticizing the Colts new WonderKid.    Failure to see the field would be on the QB...assuming he has that adequate time to throw.

 

According to the chart that was posted somewhere on this forum, 31 of ARs 37 pass attempts went to the right and mostly short.  That's passing to about 25% to 33% of the field.  One of his few throws to the left, and with a bit longer air yards, was the pick...which was a bad underthrow.

 

Sorry that I seem to be the first one to bring it up.

 

Either AR did not see the field, chose to take the easy plays, or SS knew his QBs limitations and called a game for passing plays to the right and short.  Probably a combo of both at those point until AR gets more comfortable.

[ShuteAt168]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, or you are blending some thoughts, but are you blaming SS for AR not throwing the ball to wide open WRs down the field more?....and falling short of criticizing the Colts new WonderKid.    Failure to see the field would be on the QB...assuming he has that adequate time to throw.

 

According to the chart that was posted somewhere on this forum, 31 of ARs 37 pass attempts went to the right and mostly short.  That's passing to about 25% to 33% of the field.  One of his few throws to the left, and with a bit longer air yards, was the pick...which was a bad underthrow.

 

Sorry that I seem to be the first one to bring it up.

 

Either AR did not see the field, chose to take the easy plays, or SS knew his QBs limitations and called a game for passing plays to the right and short.  Probably a combo of both at those point until AR gets more comfortable.

Good post. I have two things. 1. The deep ball is supposed to be AR’s strength so it surprised me there weren’t a couple shots. 2. I seem to be in the minority on this but I didn’t think pass protection was good at all. I don’t think AR had much time at all or a clean pocket to work in. Give AR a true WR1 and clean pocket and I think we’ll be cooking with grease in no time, but I suppose all teams want those two things. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Good post. I have two things. 1. The deep ball is supposed to be AR’s strength so it surprised me there weren’t a couple shots. 2. I seem to be in the minority on this but I didn’t think pass protection was good at all. I don’t think AR had much time at all or a clean pocket to work in. Give AR a true WR1 and clean pocket and I think we’ll be cooking with grease in no time, but I suppose all teams want those two things. 

I think he slid around the pocket enough to have time to throw deep if he saw the receivers.  I'm sure the play calling and his coaching of how to approach his first game was designed to keep him comfortable.  Understandable.  But call it what it is..it was mediocre NFL QBing by normal game standards.

 

His college tape also suggested he did not throw as well to his left.  Its not uncommon for right handed Qbs to have their left side throws be less efficient than throws to the right, but the disparity in that Jags game chart is glaring for AR.  If AR continues to throw mainly to the right and short...and not much between the hashes or to the left (or throw picks when he does), defenses will shut down this offense real quick....and JT's absence will have nothing to do with it.

 

Lets hope that AR grows comfortable throwing over the entire field so SS can expand the playbook.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The jags prevented any deep balls by having two safeties back. He took what was there which was pretty impressive. If Taylor had been playing they would if respected the run a lot more and wouldn’t of been able to do that. Run game was the only thing that could of helped that and we could not run the ball.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

The jags prevented any deep balls by having two safeties back. He took what was there which was pretty impressive. If Taylor had been playing they would if respected the run a lot more and wouldn’t of been able to do that. Run game was the only thing that could of helped that and we could not run the ball.

Its an assumption to say that nothing was available down field.  Another poster said he saw three instances where the longer play was available.  Who knows what the play call was.  We all know that great QBs like Aaron Rodgers would have known the coverage and seen the receivers come open.....wants the deeper play before he settles for the check down. 

 

First see the opening, and then possess the confidence and skill to throw the ball with accuracy.  That's not expected of AR at this point of course, but that's the difference between a very good NFL QB and a persistent game manager.

 

Its pretty tough to make conclusions based upon a QBs first game.  We all see that AR has some poise.  There are also reports that he did not throw left as well as right in college, and nothing shown at the Jags game disputes that.

[Two_pound]

I'm not blaming Richardson for "not seeing the field" it is very difficult to see "everything" I don't know if Steichen said we aren't throwing deep today, just keep everything short and close to the vest. Richardson did very well, better than I had expected. On our final play of the game, Downs was wide open running across the back of the end zone and Minshew didn't see him. Last year we COULDN'T throw deep and defenses took advantage of that(9 people in the box at times). Now we a guy who can throw it 60 yards flatfooted, we need to use that and stretch the field. Like I said, stuffed for no gain on first down you have 2nd and 10, incomplete long ball on first down you have 2nd and 10, but maybe you connect that deep ball and defenses can't stack the box 3 out of 4 plays. It's early, even Peyton struggled his first season, if I remember correctly Peyton threw 3 interceptions his first game, though he had more attempts and more yards(320, I believe). I think we are in good hands with Steichen and Richardson going forward.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its an assumption to say that nothing was available down field.  Another poster said he saw three instances where the longer play was available.  Who knows what the play call was.  We all know that great QBs like Aaron Rodgers would have known the coverage and seen the receivers come open.....wants the deeper play before he settles for the check down. 

 

First see the opening, and then possess the confidence and skill to throw the ball with accuracy.  That's not expected of AR at this point of course, but that's the difference between a very good NFL QB and a persistent game manager.

 

Its pretty tough to make conclusions based upon a QBs first game.  We all see that AR has some poise.  There are also reports that he did not throw left as well as right in college, and nothing shown at the Jags game disputes that.

Assumption? Steichen was asked this in the presser. He confirmed that and he said photos he was seeing on the sidelines confirmed it. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

You can watch Steichen talk about this here.

 

 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Assumption? Steichen was asked this in the presser. He confirmed that and he said photos he was seeing on the sidelines confirmed it. 

You've channeled the discussion into their being only deep balls and check downs, and nothing intermediate.  The poster said that he saw three instances by his limited camera view where AP and Downs were open.  I didn't take that as being routes that were taking a lot of time by running into two-deep coverage 25 yards down field.  I took it as them being more intermediate routes.  Deeper than the check downs AR persistently took.

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, or you are blending some thoughts, but are you blaming SS for AR not throwing the ball to wide open WRs down the field more?....and falling short of criticizing the Colts new WonderKid.    Failure to see the field would be on the QB...assuming he has that adequate time to throw.

 

According to the chart that was posted somewhere on this forum, 31 of ARs 37 pass attempts went to the right and mostly short.  That's passing to about 25% to 33% of the field.  One of his few throws to the left, and with a bit longer air yards, was the pick...which was a bad underthrow.

 

Sorry that I seem to be the first one to bring it up.

 

Either AR did not see the field, chose to take the easy plays, or SS knew his QBs limitations and called a game for passing plays to the right and short.  Probably a combo of both at those point until AR gets more comfortable.

Yeah, when I saw that chart I also pointed it out - he had very few passes to his left. He REALLY needs to fix that or defenses are going to have it easy defending him.

 

That said AR played better than I expected - average or not. Few rookie QBs ball out game 1.

 

There are obviously a lot of things he can do better, but a lot of those things he'll learn through experience - not looking at film or by studying a playbook.

 

The main thing for AR this season is to do better the last few weeks of the season than he did the first few. While we all like to see wins that's just secondary this year and fans who think we're going anywhere this season are kidding themselves.