Does SS move on from Bradley this offseason?

[John Waylon]

11 hours ago, compuls1v3 said:

I agree, Ballard has missed on DE, but we might have a QB, so hopefully he goes after an elite pass rusher.  I think Paye is the only DE he's picked in the first round,  and it was a late pick.  Also,  Bradley needs to blitz more.  I'd love to see some more corner blitzes and safety blitzes. 

I understand the desire to see more blitzes, but I also understand the hesitancy. If we blitz Moore or a safety we’re just putting more pressure on the corners, and I don’t think it’s going to take them long to lose a guy for 6 or a really big gain at the very least. It’s hard enough for those guys to keep track of their receivers with help over the top. That’s a double edged sword and the cut on that backswing can be a real deep one. 

[Moosejawcolt]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I understand the desire to see more blitzes, but I also understand the hesitancy. If we blitz Moore or a safety we’re just putting more pressure on the corners, and I don’t think it’s going to take them long to lose a guy for 6 or a really big gain at the very least. It’s hard enough for those guys to keep track of their receivers with help over the top. That’s a double edged sword and the cut on that backswing can be a real deep one. 

I think the move could come sooner than the off season.  If we lose to Carolina, it could get messy.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t know how long Bradley’s deal is with the Colts?   Was it one year?   Two years?   I don’t know.   I don’t think the Colts want to be buying out the defensive coaching staff.    So to moving on from Bradley, I’d guess the answer is…. Maybe. 

 

No idea what Bradley's contract is, or if he signed a new deal last year. I would think it was 2-3 years to begin with, and his assistants probably the same. 

 

I don't know why buying out the defensive staff would be a problem. First off, I'm sure they all have offset in their contracts, and Bradley and his staff don't seem to have trouble finding new jobs quickly, so the cost would probably be minimal. Second, I don't know why this idea that the Colts are hard up financially seems to persist, but I don't think it's accurate. Even if the Colts did have to absorb the remaining costs on those assistant contracts, I believe they could manage that without any trouble.

[Superman]

39 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I understand the desire to see more blitzes, but I also understand the hesitancy. If we blitz Moore or a safety we’re just putting more pressure on the corners, and I don’t think it’s going to take them long to lose a guy for 6 or a really big gain at the very least. It’s hard enough for those guys to keep track of their receivers with help over the top. That’s a double edged sword and the cut on that backswing can be a real deep one. 

 

I don't know that more blitzing automatically solves all of our problems, but I think there's room for more blitzing from where we are now -- league lowest blitz percentage of 15.5%. Bradley's defense typifies rigid and uninventive, and the few times he breaks out of that mold, it has good results (like the Ravens game). 

 

Also, it's hard to imagine a cut more deep than giving up 153 yards on three catches to one unknown dude. Bradley's defense is meant to limit big plays, that's supposed to be the gain from not being more aggressive up front. So if we're not increasing pressure with some blitzing, and we're also not taking away the deep ball, then where is this defense getting any wins? 

 

Along the way, we're also not stopping the run, not tackling well, and not creating turnovers. Eberflus was annoyingly rigid as well, but at least we were generally good against the run, and created a lot of turnovers. We were also decent at limiting big plays. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

23 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

True statement. @Restinpeacesweetchloe

 

I am hoping the Giants clean house and we can get Don Martindale.

 

2 of the best college DCs I would love to have as Colts DC, would be Glenn Schumann of Georgia or Phil Parker of Iowa. The latter does more with less. Maybe we draft Cooper DeJean of Iowa and pair him up with Phil Parker of Iowa.  

 

 

 

Was Phil there all the time?

 

You remember you kept saying last year that the defense did well when our offense was basically struggling to score at all. But, when the opposition needed to get points, they were able to score at will?

 

That's the rate at which the points are given up in recent games. 

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know that more blitzing automatically solves all of our problems, but I think there's room for more blitzing from where we are now -- league lowest blitz percentage of 15.5%. Bradley's defense typifies rigid and uninventive, and the few times he breaks out of that mold, it has good results (like the Ravens game). 

 

Also, it's hard to imagine a cut more deep than giving up 153 yards on three catches to one unknown dude. Bradley's defense is meant to limit big plays, that's supposed to be the gain from not being more aggressive up front. So if we're not increasing pressure with some blitzing, and we're also not taking away the deep ball, then where is this defense getting any wins? 

 

Along the way, we're also not stopping the run, not tackling well, and not creating turnovers. Eberflus was annoyingly rigid as well, but at least we were generally good against the run, and created a lot of turnovers. We were also decent at limiting big plays. 

IMO it's not about specific number we need to reach... you just need to not be as predictable as we are. You need to introduce some credible threat of mixing it up, otherwise you leave the opponent to operate in their comfort zone knowing exactly what to expect from your defense at (pretty much) all times. And this is especially true when our pass-rush is struggling. 

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

IMO it's not about specific number we need to reach... you just need to not be as predictable as we are. You need to introduce some credible threat of mixing it up, otherwise you leave the opponent to operate in their comfort zone knowing exactly what to expect from your defense at (pretty much) all times. And this is especially true when our pass-rush is struggling. 

 

Agreed. I don't care what the percentage is if the defense is playing well. Just pointing out that there's plenty of room to add some pressure packages, and still be conservative overall. 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Was Phil there all the time?

 

You remember you kept saying last year that the defense did well when our offense was basically struggling to score at all. But, when the opposition needed to get points, they were able to score at will?

 

That's the rate at which the points are given up in recent games. 

 

He's been the DC since 2012. Getting a lot of hype lately. I don't know that he could put together a pro staff, and I don't know if this TDs allowed stat is as meaningful as it seems.

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's been the DC since 2012. Getting a lot of hype lately. I don't know that he could put together a pro staff, and I don't know if this TDs allowed stat is as meaningful as it seems.

 

It is defensive TDs scored, not TDs allowed stat. But I get the point. 

 

They have sent good defensive backs to the NFL, there is no doubt on that front, the Iowa Hawkeyes. Saban, Mike Tomlin, Tony Dungy, they were all secondary coaches before they became DCs and/or HCs.

[chad72]

21 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

 

You remember you kept saying last year that the defense did well when our offense was basically struggling to score at all. But, when the opposition needed to get points, they were able to score at will?

 

 

Yes, I did say that. It was like the opponents knew they could step on the gas vs Bradley's D when they needed to, and knowing our O wasn't being effective, they could play not to lose without committing mistakes, till they had to play to win on the shoulders of their offense.

 

Bradley's Ds aren't like those Steelers or Ravens' Ds, that when you need a stop, they will do anything and everything in their power to disrupt at every level (DL, LB, DB) when an offense goes through a funk of 2 or 3 drives without a score or the O gives up a turnover, IMO. 

[Boondoggle]

If the Colts want to contend they would be wise to install a better DC.  I didn't care for the hire and have never liked Bradley but will admit he has done some good things.  But is he the right leader for that side of the ball to get you where you want to go.

 

For myself that would be a no.  I think we know who he is, which is a second tier DC at best.  And whether they replace him will be a good indicator of the health of this organization.  So I am not certain that will happen.  Would not surprise me if they were to hold on to him, though I voted "yes" because I'd move on from him.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

It is defensive TDs scored, not TDs allowed stat. But I get the point. 

 

They have sent good defensive backs to the NFL, there is no doubt on that front, the Iowa Hawkeyes.

 

Ah, I misunderstood. It's eye catching, but I don't know if I can follow along with the conclusion in the tweet, not just based on that stat. 

[twfish]

Is there also an issue with Bradley's defense being to complicated. If its so complicated that you've held back better players, isn't that sort of a self inflicted issue? If a kid that went to Yale for christ sake is getting confused shouldn't that be an indicator? Don't get me wrong I wasn't a huge fan of flus but one of his big things were keeping it simple and let guys play fast. At some point Gus has to realize that regardless of what talent is out on the field if people aren't sure what they are supposed to do then you're doomed even if you make the right call.

 

Maybe last year with guys like Rodgers and Flowers who had the luxury of making a mistake but having the speed to recover was much more of a saving grace and covered up some of Bradley's issues?

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know that more blitzing automatically solves all of our problems, but I think there's room for more blitzing from where we are now -- league lowest blitz percentage of 15.5%. Bradley's defense typifies rigid and uninventive, and the few times he breaks out of that mold, it has good results (like the Ravens game). 

 

Also, it's hard to imagine a cut more deep than giving up 153 yards on three catches to one unknown dude. Bradley's defense is meant to limit big plays, that's supposed to be the gain from not being more aggressive up front. So if we're not increasing pressure with some blitzing, and we're also not taking away the deep ball, then where is this defense getting any wins? 

 

Along the way, we're also not stopping the run, not tackling well, and not creating turnovers. Eberflus was annoyingly rigid as well, but at least we were generally good against the run, and created a lot of turnovers. We were also decent at limiting big plays. 

Giving unknown guys 150 yards on single digit catches could easily turn into giving known guys 250 if we start bringing good guys out of the secondary and leaving more pressure on the bad. They can’t cover guys with all hands on deck knowing a pass is coming and knowing who it is going to back there right now. 
 

There’s no simple solution. There may be no solution. This is the affects of a cumulative problem. Ballard has been to pass rush what grigson was to the offensive line. Sure, he’s tried to fix it. But there’s no consolation for trying and missing repeatedly. 

 

A similar argument can be made of the secondary. Ballard loves him some Tony Brown. Loves him. We’ve all heard him gush over how great he thinks Brown is. But we’ve seen the proof right there in the pudding. Why is this a player Balled raves about? If this is the kind of player he wants on his defense that’s indicative of a problem to me because Brown, like the pass rush, isn’t cutting it. That’s why the wins for this defense are getting so few and far between. These problems independently compound the other 
 

If we’re going to blitz from any spot I’d feel much more comfortable blitzing LBs. 
 

There’s no simple solution. Just a mounting problem. We’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. 
 

To me, I just don’t feel like our issues on defense right now rest solely on scheme and play calling. Those are not helping, but they’re not gotten a lot of help, either. We’re experiencing an amalgamation issue as much as anything right now in my opinion. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Giving unknown guys 150 yards on single digit catches could easily turn into giving known guys 250 if we start bringing good guys out of the secondary and leaving more pressure on the bad. They can’t cover guys with all hands on deck knowing a pass is coming and knowing who it is going to back there right now. 
 

There’s no simple solution. There may be no solution. This is the affects of a cumulative problem. Ballard has been to pass rush what grigson was to the offensive line. Sure, he’s tried to fix it. But there’s no consolation for trying and missing repeatedly. 

 

A similar argument can be made of the secondary. Ballard loves him some Tony Brown. Loves him. We’ve all heard him gush over how great he thinks Brown is. But we’ve seen the proof right there in the pudding. Why is this a player Balled raves about? If this is the kind of player he wants on his defense that’s indicative of a problem to me because Brown, like the pass rush, isn’t cutting it. That’s why the wins for this defense are getting so few and far between. These problems independently compound the other 
 

If we’re going to blitz from any spot I’d feel much more comfortable blitzing LBs. 
 

There’s no simple solution. Just a mounting problem. We’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. 
 

To me, I just don’t feel like our issues on defense right now rest solely on scheme and play calling. Those are not helping, but they’re not gotten a lot of help, either. We’re experiencing an amalgamation issue as much as anything right now in my opinion. 

 

Not much to disagree with there. I would say that I think Tony Brown is more of a nickel than a boundary corner, so maybe he's not entirely useless, but yeah.

 

And I'm not advocating for DB blitzes over LB blitzes. I'm not even necessarily advocating for blitzing. Just saying that the theoretical rationale behind not blitzing isn't really playing out in the real world. Being conservative is supposed to limit big plays, but that's not happening, so what do we get from being conservative? I will say that the bolded doesn't really inspire any confidence for me.

 

I do think we have as much a personnel problem as we have a scheme problem right now. And that's made worse by the injuries and Grover's suspension. There are no simple fixes. But as I said, I'm not a Bradley fan to begin with, so I don't see keeping him as being a step toward seeing improvement.

[sb41champs]

We shall see what we shall see!!

 

When Steichen came in - Gus Bradley AND his defensive staff ALL had 1-year left on their contracts.  

 

Will there be wholesale changes on defense - like there was this season on offense?

[compuls1v3]

4 hours ago, John Waylon said:

I understand the desire to see more blitzes, but I also understand the hesitancy. If we blitz Moore or a safety we’re just putting more pressure on the corners, and I don’t think it’s going to take them long to lose a guy for 6 or a really big gain at the very least. It’s hard enough for those guys to keep track of their receivers with help over the top. That’s a double edged sword and the cut on that backswing can be a real deep one. 

I see what you are saying.  I we'll say if maybe the corners could just jam/disrupt the route, it would be helpful.  Here's to hoping we get that elite pass rusher next year.

[Defjamz26]

11 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Which is why you shouldn’t have a 7th round pick from Yale starting at FS in his 2nd year.
 

This can be directly attributed to youth and inexperience but it’s not an excuse. This has been going on since Flus was here. Always miscommunications in the secondary. Always big plays given up to end games and you have the CB, the FS, and the LB all staring at each other and talking after the TD. Some of that I’ll put on Ballard, but some of that still falls in Gus. If your corners and safety’s are always confused as to what they’re supposed to be doing then 

1. They shouldn’t be out there starting/getting significant playing time

2. Maybe the scheme is too complex.

 

To me common sense would tell you that when you’re playing a team that has two guys in Olave and Shaheed who have legitimate deep speed, that you should just make the FS sit on top of one of them.  You move Kenny outside and put him on Olave and put Brown in the slot where he actually can thrive. You have a defense that is literally designed to limit the big play and they couldn’t even do that. That’s scheme.

 

[Zoltan]

While I don’t think that Gus Bradley will be fired. I do get why people want to move on from him, personally when Eberflus left I wanted to hire Jim Schwartz but he went to Cleveland and revitalized their defense. If we were to hire a new DC I would prefer someone from Schwartz coaching tree or someone from Saleh’s tree they both are great creating pressure with their DL using stunts and such. 

[MikeCurtis]

I think everyone would agree the pressure from the DEs make this defense more successful. 
 

Sweat and Chase Young went for next to nothing 

 

Both are better than what we have for the pass rush……

 

Paye covers the run better than both

 

 

This team needs (to compete)

 

 

HEALTH
 

and

 

1) Alpha WR1

2) Pass rushing stud DE

3) CB

4) Playmaking FS

 

 

 

[Solid84]

7 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I think everyone would agree the pressure from the DEs make this defense more successful. 
 

Sweat and Chase Young went for next to nothing 

 

Both are better than what we have for the pass rush……

 

Paye covers the run better than both

 

 

This team needs (to compete)

 

 

HEALTH
 

and

 

1) Alpha WR1

2) Pass rushing stud DE

3) CB

4) Playmaking FS

 

 

 

5) Coverage LB. 

[CoachLite]

On 10/30/2023 at 12:28 PM, 1959Colts said:

Sometimes the defense plays ok, but I get the feeling, whenever we face a top tier QB, its a safe bet, the D will get picked apart. I honestly believe, whether they fire Bradley this year or not, the team will never be successful with Gus as D coordinator

Gus Bradley need to go somewhere else where he can succeed, if possible. It's not here.

[OLD FAN MAN]

not sure ss can replace gus that is ballards dc and ballard likes the soft zone system

[twfish]

12 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I think everyone would agree the pressure from the DEs make this defense more successful. 
 

Sweat and Chase Young went for next to nothing 

 

Both are better than what we have for the pass rush……

 

Paye covers the run better than both

 

 

This team needs (to compete)

 

 

HEALTH
 

and

 

1) Alpha WR1

2) Pass rushing stud DE

3) CB

4) Playmaking FS

 

 

 

I think you have your priority a little wrong. A top 5 offense with a #30 defense. 
 

1) CB

2) FS

3) DE

4) receiver

[Zoltan]

I will say when everyone is healthy Bradley's defense is a top 5 defense but how his system is everyone has a certain job and it collapses easily with one mistake like when we have injuries. He seems unable to adjust when this happens, ironically he seems like the opposite of Steichen. Where Steichen says he likes to see his talent and build the offense off their strengths, Bradley has his specific system and tries to fit the player within that system. If we do move on from Gus at the end of the season I would hope we would try to find the defensive version of Steichen.

[Boondoggle]

On 11/1/2023 at 4:44 AM, Zoltan said:

While I don’t think that Gus Bradley will be fired. I do get why people want to move on from him, personally when Eberflus left I wanted to hire Jim Schwartz but he went to Cleveland and revitalized their defense. If we were to hire a new DC I would prefer someone from Schwartz coaching tree or someone from Saleh’s tree they both are great creating pressure with their DL using stunts and such. 

Schwartz is grossly underrated.

[Pat Curtis]

21 hours ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

not sure ss can replace gus that is ballards dc and ballard likes the soft zone system

 

I was going to ask about this.  Does Steichen like a vanilla Cover 3?  Does Ballard?

 

A Jim Schwartz type of defense is my personal favorite. 

[Zoltan]

38 minutes ago, Pat Curtis said:

 

I was going to ask about this.  Does Steichen like a vanilla Cover 3?  Does Ballard?

 

A Jim Schwartz type of defense is my personal favorite. 

 

Yeah same. I would imagine if the season continues like it is, at the end of season meeting Steichen would be able to say the trial with Bradley hasn't worked out and I want to look for a DC that better complements our offense. I kind of see it like how Ballard had to keep Pagano his first year as GM to give it a chance.

 

I was bored last night and did a deep dive of who could the Colts target as a new DC, and came up with two names one that has a 4-3 base and another who does a multiple front/3-4 base.

 

The first being Mike Rutenberg, linebackers coach, Jets. This would be his first time as a DC, 14 years of coaching experience, followed Saleh from the 49ers to the Jets and got to be the DC for the 2022 Senior Bowl. He would bring a 4-3 base which we already have.

 

The second has a lot of ties to indiana and got his NFL start with the Colts James Bettcher. He came to indianapolis with Chuck Pagano and left to be the DC for Bruce Arians with the Cardinals, he's currently the linebackers coach for the Bengals. The one thing I like about him is during a interview he said you build your defense around the talent you have, which is very like Steichen's philosophy, otherwise he is the complete opposite of Gus Bradley. During his time in Arizona he used exotic/multiple fronts but fundamentally 3-4, he used alot of exotic blitzes with being top 5 in blitz rate. If you remember he was the one who would have one DT and multiple LBs on the field all showing blitz, he also took Buchanon from SS and moved him to play LB.

[OLD FAN MAN]

2 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

Yeah same. I would imagine if the season continues like it is, at the end of season meeting Steichen would be able to say the trial with Bradley hasn't worked out and I want to look for a DC that better complements our offense. I kind of see it like how Ballard had to keep Pagano his first year as GM to give it a chance.

 

I was bored last night and did a deep dive of who could the Colts target as a new DC, and came up with two names one that has a 4-3 base and another who does a multiple front/3-4 base.

 

The first being Mike Rutenberg, linebackers coach, Jets. This would be his first time as a DC, 14 years of coaching experience, followed Saleh from the 49ers to the Jets and got to be the DC for the 2022 Senior Bowl. He would bring a 4-3 base which we already have.

 

The second has a lot of ties to indiana and got his NFL start with the Colts James Bettcher. He came to indianapolis with Chuck Pagano and left to be the DC for Bruce Arians with the Cardinals, he's currently the linebackers coach for the Bengals. The one thing I like about him is during a interview he said you build your defense around the talent you have, which is very like Steichen's philosophy, otherwise he is the complete opposite of Gus Bradley. During his time in Arizona he used exotic/multiple fronts but fundamentally 3-4, he used alot of exotic blitzes with being top 5 in blitz rate. If you remember he was the one who would have one DT and multiple LBs on the field all showing blitz, he also took Buchanon from SS and moved him to play LB.

bettcher sounds like a winner

[Zoltan]

2 hours ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

bettcher sounds like a winner

He’s definitely creative although after Arians retired his time with the giants wasn’t as successful 

[NewColtsFan]

On 10/31/2023 at 9:48 AM, Superman said:

 

No idea what Bradley's contract is, or if he signed a new deal last year. I would think it was 2-3 years to begin with, and his assistants probably the same. 

 

I don't know why buying out the defensive staff would be a problem. First off, I'm sure they all have offset in their contracts, and Bradley and his staff don't seem to have trouble finding new jobs quickly, so the cost would probably be minimal. Second, I don't know why this idea that the Colts are hard up financially seems to persist, but I don't think it's accurate. Even if the Colts did have to absorb the remaining costs on those assistant contracts, I believe they could manage that without any trouble.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.   
 

It’s my view that small market teams like the Colts have to be much more careful with the financial decisions they make than  big market teams.   Big market teams make far more money in things like the price of a ticket, parking, food, souvenirs, you name it.   Big market teams have so many more advantages.   The salary cap keeps a level playing field for in-season spending, but the benefits of being a big market team can’t be downplayed, especially in out of season decisions. 
 

I’ve publicly given you credit for pointing out that the Colts have recently been among the leaders in in-season spending.  But small market teams have to be smarter and more disciplined in their spending.  
 

I believe during the Grigson years the Colts spent big on FA just once.  2013.   I don’t think it was money well spent and I don’t think the Colts have had another big free agency spending spree again.   You and I have had discussions in the past over how long it took Irsay to spend big money to bring the Colts facility up to the standards of most franchises.   I believe Ballard convinced him it was in the Colts best interest if they wanted to be competitive going forward.  Players want to be in a state of the art facility and the Colts didn’t have one until Ballard convinced Irsay it was important.  
 

Im not saying the Colts are poor.   Only that they have to be smart with how they spend their money.    Hope this explains my views.  

[Nickster]

On 10/31/2023 at 2:24 PM, Superman said:

I do think we have as much a personnel problem as we have a scheme problem right now. And that's made worse by the injuries and Grover's suspension. There are no simple fixes. But as I said, I'm not a Bradley fan to begin with, so I don't see keeping him as being a step toward seeing improvement.

Like most things Colt that are not going well I think this issue is also a personnel issue.  Dback wise I’m sure you’ve commented like almost every one else, we lost a lot with Gilmore and then the gambler and we were bound to struggle in the secondary.

 

But we also should have known that we would struggle v the pass in the LB corps with or without Shaq.  We had some false positivity at the start of the season, but our LB corps is weakness not a strength.  The secondary is weak.  The Dline is decent but not good enough to make up for the deficiencies of the other groups, and Stewart’s suspension hurts that group v the run.

 

As far as blitzing you seem to be saying why not?  We suck any way playing the way we are allowing 153 on 3 catches. I get that .

 

But blitzing without guys that can man cover TEs and other quick routes out of the back field and from bunched or slanting wide players can get a lot worse.

 

I’m not against blitzing in theory but you’ve got to have personnel that can execute it.  We don’t appear to have that but I guess why not try and see what happens at this point.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.   
 

It’s my view that small market teams like the Colts have to be much more careful with the financial decisions they make than  big market teams.   Big market teams make far more money in things like the price of a ticket, parking, food, souvenirs, you name it.   Big market teams have so many more advantages.   The salary cap keeps a level playing field for in-season spending, but the benefits of being a big market team can’t be downplayed, especially in out of season decisions. 
 

I’ve publicly given you credit for pointing out that the Colts have recently been among the leaders in in-season spending.  But small market teams have to be smarter and more disciplined in their spending.  
 

I believe during the Grigson years the Colts spent big on FA just once.  2013.   I don’t think it was money well spent and I don’t think the Colts have had another big free agency spending spree again.   You and I have had discussions in the past over how long it took Irsay to spend big money to bring the Colts facility up to the standards of most franchises.   I believe Ballard convinced him it was in the Colts best interest if they wanted to be competitive going forward.  Players want to be in a state of the art facility and the Colts didn’t have one until Ballard convinced Irsay it was important.  
 

Im not saying the Colts are poor.   Only that they have to be smart with how they spend their money.    Hope this explains my views.  

 

I agree with the idea that the Colts need to be more financially disciplined than teams with more wealthy ownership, and even teams in bigger markets with more sponsorship revenue. Just saying that I don't think they have to tip-toe around whether they can afford to pay off a handful of assistant coaches. I don't think team finances are overruling football decisions to that degree.

[BlackTiger]

19 hours ago, Pat Curtis said:

 

I was going to ask about this.  Does Steichen like a vanilla Cover 3?  Does Ballard?

 

According to pff almost every team in the league is in cover 2 or cover 3 most of the time now.  To put it another way cover 2 and 3 make up more than 50% of all defensive snaps for the league as a whole

[Superman]

8 hours ago, Nickster said:

Like most things Colt that are not going well I think this issue is also a personnel issue.  Dback wise I’m sure you’ve commented like almost every one else, we lost a lot with Gilmore and then the gambler and we were bound to struggle in the secondary.

 

But we also should have known that we would struggle v the pass in the LB corps with or without Shaq.  We had some false positivity at the start of the season, but our LB corps is weakness not a strength.  The secondary is weak.  The Dline is decent but not good enough to make up for the deficiencies of the other groups, and Stewart’s suspension hurts that group v the run.

 

As far as blitzing you seem to be saying why not?  We suck any way playing the way we are allowing 153 on 3 catches. I get that .

 

But blitzing without guys that can man cover TEs and other quick routes out of the back field and from bunched or slanting wide players can get a lot worse.

 

I’m not against blitzing in theory but you’ve got to have personnel that can execute it.  We don’t appear to have that but I guess why not try and see what happens at this point.

 

We also lost Flowers, and now Brents is out for a while. The secondary was always going to be young and prone to mistakes, but now even the young guys we were expecting to play a bigger role are on the sidelines. We're down to 3rd and 4th stringers at corner. So I don't think saying 'this is what happens when you go young at corner' is adequate analysis. Baker and Brown at outside corner wasn't supposed to happen. 

 

But I have to push back on the 'can get a lot worse' angle. How much worse can it really get? Our pass defense is already terrible. We're already giving up huge pass plays every week, multiple times a week. The Saints WR didn't catch one big pass that brought his average up; he caught three 40+ yard catches, and each of them led to a TD. 

 

We're playing a conservative brand of defense that's supposed to limit big plays. We're willing to give up a high completion percentage because we're supposed to be able to rally to the ball, tackle well, and limit explosive plays. Instead, we're allowing a high completion percentage, and giving up explosives. It's the worst of both worlds. 

 

I'm not saying we scrap the defensive game plan. I'm saying be more flexible, like we were willing to do against the Ravens, with positive results. Because 'we do what we do' is malpractice when what we do is fundamentally broken. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with the idea that the Colts need to be more financially disciplined than teams with more wealthy ownership, and even teams in bigger markets with more sponsorship revenue. Just saying that I don't think they have to tip-toe around whether they can afford to pay off a handful of assistant coaches. I don't think team finances are overruling football decisions to that degree.

Yeah….  I think you made a post about the Bradley coaches getting hired elsewhere and offsets and such that frankly I hadn’t considered.   Once I read that, that specific issue pretty much vanished for me.    Thanks, as always. 

[WERC82]

You can't play Dungy ball constantly in today's league. The athlete's are too good. Particularly the dual threat QB's. Bradley doesn't take enough chances at blitzing. Like Reich, he doesn't seem to take advantage of momentum or a hot hand. Also like Reich, he wants players to adapt to his system rather than tweaking his system to adapt to the players. For Pete's sake, he thinks he can consistently get pressure rushing only four even without his strongest lineman, Grover. Made no adjustments to compensate for that missing piece. Forcing turnovers and making momentum changing plays come from taking chances, doing something different, unexpected. He's as predictable as Reich was. It put his players at a disadvantage. He has to go.

[Dark Superman]

100%

[MikeCurtis]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:46 PM, twfish said:

I think you have your priority a little wrong. A top 5 offense with a #30 defense. 
 

1) CB

2) FS

3) DE

4) receiver

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying (Its a low bar  )

 

IMHO To get to a top 5 offense...... this team, needs to get a speedy Alpha WR (AND health)

 

IMHO To get to a top 10 defense (Good enough to win.... IF you ALSO have a top 5 offense)

 

We need pass rush/ playmaking FS/ viable CB

 

We have an excellent CB today that should continue to grow in Brents (When healthy)

 

This defense requires another  CB that can keep the action in front of them AND can tackle.......

 

These can be had in round 2 or 3