Colts vs Bengals post game reaction

[Hoose]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's not just about whether you're playing zone, or what kind of zone you're playing. Other factors include whether you're playing press or off coverage, how you're matching patterns, what you do against trips/bunch, etc. 

 

Also, despite the fact that every team plays zone most of the time, other teams still use different coverages and pressures with greater variety than the Colts, because they recognize that you have to adjust your defense situationally. 

It’s pretty clear that our DC is well past his prime. But the Colts will ride it out this year. So what to do?
 

If I were the HC, I’d be telling him the obvious…..that the status quo isn’t working. Figure out how to get pressure on the QB; how to confuse the opposing team; in other words, time to get creative and unpredictable. They have nothing to lose with that approach; one more game like last Sunday and they’re toast. 
SHAKE. THINGS. UP. 

[richard pallo]

43 minutes ago, Hoose said:

It’s pretty clear that our DC is well past his prime. But the Colts will ride it out this year. So what to do?
 

If I were the HC, I’d be telling him the obvious…..that the status quo isn’t working. Figure out how to get pressure on the QB; how to confuse the opposing team; in other words, time to get creative and unpredictable. They have nothing to lose with that approach; one more game like last Sunday and they’re toast. 
SHAKE. THINGS. UP. 

Disagree.  I think he’s done a pretty remarkable job considering the players he has to work with and the other circumstances he has faced.  Losing Gilmore, Rodgers, Leonard’s collapse and Grover’s suspension just to name a few.  Yet here we are at 7 wins still in the playoff hunt.  The last game was a total team loss imo.  Just not on the defense.  I think if we had more experience in the secondary and a few more talented players our defense would be very good.  If the coach wants to make a change at the end of the year so be it.  But I think he’s done a good job with what he has had to work with.

[Moosejawcolt]

16 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Odd you call yourself a fan but only post after losses.  

really? I post after every game. I took of the last few weeks and I was waiting for this game as a reality check for the fans to show how far off we are in terms of  talent when compared to good teams. The defense is atrocious and lacks any talent on that side of the ball.

[Moosejawcolt]

20 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Why can't you just enjoy a win when it happens and not just show up after a loss. We play who is front of us, that is Football 101. We did win at Baltimore and at Houston.

Baltimore was a different team when we played them and so was Houston. People think I am negative. All this  winning streak did was give Ballard some more time to wreck this team as iI see it. He needs to go. People constantly excuse him but if you look  how he has constructed this defense after 7 years, it is an utter failure. They have shown no progress and no playmakers on that side of the ball. Sure we play weak teams with horrible qbs and everyone is jumping up and down for the last 4 weeks.  The pass rush looks great and they are hiting their stride. You really have to look at the last 4 games and they are very bad teams. They offered absolutely no threat offensively. I  sit back and say wait till they play a good team and we shall see. They play  a good team and the excuses start to fly. This defense has performed the same for the last 7 years.  There has been no growth as I see it.  I watched the comments during the game and  people said they didnt look prepared, Gus needs to go, they came in to confident, every team has a bad day, the refs had it in for us and so on. Both teams had back up qbs and it showed the disparity in talent.. The talent on the defensive side of the ball is not very good. No elite pass rushers after 7 years. No quality corners after 7 years. Our best D player was acquired through a trade. I said it years ago that this team would never win with Ballard constructing this defense and sticking to this scheme. If you just look back at his drafts on the defensive side of the ball, it has been very concerning. He drafts high end athletic players hoping they will turn into great players or take players and converting them to different positions once they get to the NFL. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:51 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Number one priority this offseason has to be fixing the secondary. Someone laughed at my post this morning about needing to draft a CB high. These backups we have are just that. Backups who should not be starters. Brent’s has not been able to stay healthy so you need to make sure you have insurance there.

About the person who laughed at your post about drafting someone high….   It was probably me.   And I’ll explain why….

 

Because you make the same argument that other posters have been making here since I arrived over 12 years ago.   It sounds like this…..
 

“Our rookie didn’t show enough in his first year to have faith that he’ll be good enough next year, so we have to draft that same position high.”   That’s what you’re recommending for Brents.   He didn’t show enough so we have to draft his another corner high.   
 

It’s my view that Ballard has never done that.   He has faith in who he drafts.  He is patient.   Now you can argue Ballard is too patient, and I’m sure many here would agree with you.  But he’s never gone back to back to replace a disappointing player.   He’s gone back to back at DE to build his roster, but that’s different.  
 

And I’d add this….   If he does go back to back, then he’s changing his philosophy to have two high quality corners, Brents last year, and the guy you want in 24.   Ballard has never had two high quality corners at the same time since he’s been here.  So maybe it happens, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 
 

By the way, when Brent’s has played, I think his score is somewhere around 75, which is very high.  So my view is he’s shown more than you think. 
 

Sorry to have offended you.  Wasn’t trying to. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

About the person who laughed at your post about drafting someone high….   It was probably me.   And I’ll explain why….

 

Because you make the same argument that other posters have been making here since I arrived over 12 years ago.   It sounds like this…..
 

“Our rookie didn’t show enough in his first year to have faith that he’ll be good enough next year, so we have to draft that same position high.”   That’s what you’re recommending for Brents.   He didn’t show enough so we have to draft his another corner high.   
 

It’s my view that Ballard has never done that.   He has faith in who he drafts.  He is patient.   Now you can argue Ballard is too patient, and I’m sure many here would agree with you.  But he’s never gone back to back to replace a disappointing player.   He’s gone back to back at DE to build his roster, but that’s different.  
 

And I’d add this….   If he does go back to back, then he’s changing his philosophy to have two high quality corners, Brents last year, and the guy you want in 24.   Ballard has never had two high quality corners at the same time since he’s been here.  So maybe it happens, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 
 

By the way, when Brent’s has played, I think his score is somewhere around 75, which is very high.  So my view is he’s shown more than you think. 
 

Sorry to have offended you.  Wasn’t trying to. 

I wasn’t talking about Brent’s. You need two good CB. Plus with Brent’s injury history it’s a good idea to protect themselves. First 3 rounds would be a good spot to take another CB.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Matt Miller just released his mock and he had colts taking CB koolaid Mckinstry. lol. What a name.

[ColtStrong2013]

20 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I wasn’t talking about Brent’s. You need two good CB. Plus with Brent’s injury history it’s a good idea to protect themselves. First 3 rounds would be a good spot to take another CB.

frustrating watching Gilmore play at such a high level for the cowboys. He would have undoubtedly made this team much better. But it was his decision to want out and Ballard respected it. It wasn’t the pick we received (used it on Hull) but coming up empty handed with the Rush pick was even more disappointing to me. I think the defensive secondary can improve dramatically, but it’s going to be a process and one that Ballard no doubt will continue to address going forward.

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Matt Miller just released his mock and he had colts taking CB koolaid Mckinstry. lol. What a name.

We’re really going to need a strong secondary considering the quarterbacks in our division and conference.

[indyagent17]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

frustrating watching Gilmore play at such a high level for the cowboys. He would have undoubtedly made this team much better. But it was his decision to want out and Ballard respected it. It wasn’t the pick we received (used it on Hull) but coming up empty handed with the Rush pick was even more disappointing to me. I think the defensive secondary can improve dramatically, but it’s going to be a process and one that Ballard no doubt will continue to address going forward.

I guess he just wanted out if the Colts did this them shame on Ballard

[husker61]

Saying the colts should draft a specific position in the first round is bound for failure. You never know who will be available. You can have priorities, but who is picked or if you trade down depends on who is available. Teams that stretch to draft a position of need don’t usually benefit from this strategy. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, husker61 said:

Saying the colts should draft a specific position in the first round is bound for failure. You never know who will be available. You can have priorities, but who is picked or if you trade down depends on who is available. Teams that stretch to draft a position of need don’t usually benefit from this strategy. 

Nice thing about colts this year they can be totally open with that first round pick. They don’t need a QB or LT. So they can take almost any position they want. This is even a year where I would be open to trading the first for a proven player that would be worth giving up the first for.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

We’re really going to need a strong secondary considering the quarterbacks in our division and conference.

You hit the nail on the head here. 100%. 

[husker61]

Or take chance on  a player that falls for some reason even if it isn’t a big need. Maybe you end up with a home run.

[RollerColt]

2 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Matt Miller just released his mock and he had colts taking CB koolaid Mckinstry. lol. What a name.

Despite the name, that kid is a beast. I would be very happy to have him on the team. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Despite the name, that kid is a beast. I would be very happy to have him on the team. 

 

His real name is Ga'Quincy. Kool-Aid is better...

[RollerColt]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

His real name is Ga'Quincy. Kool-Aid is better...

[hoosierhawk]

Been busy this week and haven't read this whole thread but has the penalty on Nelson on the TD that was called back been mentioned? To me I thought it was a bad call. 

[jvan1973]

5 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Baltimore was a different team when we played them and so was Houston. People think I am negative. All this  winning streak did was give Ballard some more time to wreck this team as iI see it. He needs to go. People constantly excuse him but if you look  how he has constructed this defense after 7 years, it is an utter failure. They have shown no progress and no playmakers on that side of the ball. Sure we play weak teams with horrible qbs and everyone is jumping up and down for the last 4 weeks.  The pass rush looks great and they are hiting their stride. You really have to look at the last 4 games and they are very bad teams. They offered absolutely no threat offensively. I  sit back and say wait till they play a good team and we shall see. They play  a good team and the excuses start to fly. This defense has performed the same for the last 7 years.  There has been no growth as I see it.  I watched the comments during the game and  people said they didnt look prepared, Gus needs to go, they came in to confident, every team has a bad day, the refs had it in for us and so on. Both teams had back up qbs and it showed the disparity in talent.. The talent on the defensive side of the ball is not very good. No elite pass rushers after 7 years. No quality corners after 7 years. Our best D player was acquired through a trade. I said it years ago that this team would never win with Ballard constructing this defense and sticking to this scheme. If you just look back at his drafts on the defensive side of the ball, it has been very concerning. He drafts high end athletic players hoping they will turn into great players or take players and converting them to different positions once they get to the NFL. 

Didn't the Titans just beat the dolphins?

7 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Been busy this week and haven't read this whole thread but has the penalty on Nelson on the TD that was called back been mentioned? To me I thought it was a bad call. 

Terrible call

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

Despite the name, that kid is a beast. I would be very happy to have him on the team. 

 

A beast you say??

[RollerColt]

13 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

 

A beast you say??

I love that meme! And sadly I have more and more students each year who don’t get it. I must continue to educate the masses. 

[RollerColt]

5 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

really? I post after every game. I took of the last few weeks and I was waiting for this game as a reality check for the fans to show how far off we are in terms of  talent when compared to good teams. The defense is atrocious and lacks any talent on that side of the ball.

My Canadian friend, do you not see how it could look a little weird and even narcissistic when you say you’ve been “waiting for this game” so you can prove you’re right? 
 

Take @Restinpeacesweetchloe for example. All week last week she was saying this could be a troublesome game and laid out the reasons for why. She did this because she cared about our chances of winning, not because she wanted to be right. 
 

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. We’re not as bad or as good as we look at the moment. 
 

Ballard isn’t perfect and he’s certainly to blame for Indy’s struggles. But he’s here for the future and we have to live with it. 

[Two_pound]

So Ballard sucks because he hasn't built a defense? Boo hoo, boo hoo. Let's see if it is really just a Ballard issue, let's look at the past 50 years of Colt history shall we! With Bert jones, we lost 3 playoff games by giving up 28, 42, and 37 points. In 1987 we lost a playoff game 14-10. Then after another loooooooooonnnnngggg hiatus from post season play we lost 2 playoff games in the 90's by giving up 20 and then 38 points. Though it should be noted the loss in '95 is generally regarded as one of the absolute worst officiated playoff games in nfl history. So, let's get to the Peyton era. First 2 losses we gave up 20 something to Tennessee, and 36 to the dolphins. Then followed that up with a 41-0 loss to the jets,(huh?). Then we finally got 2 playoff w's by outscoring Denver and KC, but gave up gobs of points in the process(68 total I believe). Then got eliminated by giving up 24. Do I need to go on, It doesn't get any better! I think the only defensive playoff game we won in the past 50 years was at Baltimore. Oooooooh, one game! We lost a Super Bowl giving up 31. The Luck years weren't any better. Fact is, we've probably been the most competitive these past seven years with Ballard than any other time in the past 50 years, and that's with a revolving door at qb, and a not very good head coach for the most part. So, in my opinion it's not a Ballard thing, it's 50 years of history working against us. So, why haven't we played defense for 50 years????

[ShuteAt168]

6 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Disagree.  I think he’s done a pretty remarkable job considering the players he has to work with and the other circumstances he has faced.  Losing Gilmore, Rodgers, Leonard’s collapse and Grover’s suspension just to name a few.  Yet here we are at 7 wins still in the playoff hunt.  The last game was a total team loss imo.  Just not on the defense.  I think if we had more experience in the secondary and a few more talented players our defense would be very good.  If the coach wants to make a change at the end of the year so be it.  But I think he’s done a good job with what he has had to work with.

I wonder if CB regrets giving Gilmore away. Check that, I don’t think he ever questions himself. Seems like Gilmore would be a good guy to have right now. 

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I wonder if CB regrets giving Gilmore away. Check that, I don’t think he ever questions himself. Seems like Gilmore would be a good guy to have right now. 

I think Gilmore wanted to go to a contender and Ballard got what he could

[ShuteAt168]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

About the person who laughed at your post about drafting someone high….   It was probably me.   And I’ll explain why….

 

Because you make the same argument that other posters have been making here since I arrived over 12 years ago.   It sounds like this…..
 

“Our rookie didn’t show enough in his first year to have faith that he’ll be good enough next year, so we have to draft that same position high.”   That’s what you’re recommending for Brents.   He didn’t show enough so we have to draft his another corner high.   
 

It’s my view that Ballard has never done that.   He has faith in who he drafts.  He is patient.   Now you can argue Ballard is too patient, and I’m sure many here would agree with you.  But he’s never gone back to back to replace a disappointing player.   He’s gone back to back at DE to build his roster, but that’s different.  
 

And I’d add this….   If he does go back to back, then he’s changing his philosophy to have two high quality corners, Brents last year, and the guy you want in 24.   Ballard has never had two high quality corners at the same time since he’s been here.  So maybe it happens, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 
 

By the way, when Brent’s has played, I think his score is somewhere around 75, which is very high.  So my view is he’s shown more than you think. 
 

Sorry to have offended you.  Wasn’t trying to. 

Thing about Juju is he was hurt when we picked him and he’s always hurt. I cringe when we take a guy that’s injured and the announcers always say “he’s expected to be ok for camp.” It’s probably just my Colts bias and I have no facts behind it but drafting injured guys just seems like a bad idea. Guys who get hurt a lot get hurt a lot. I agree he has potential— I’m from his neck of the woods and he might be a difference maker if he gets healthy. 

[ShuteAt168]

6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I think Gilmore wanted to go to a contender and Ballard got what he could

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

[RollerColt]

9 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

It’s not really Ballard’s MO to hold players hostage. Stephon wanted out of a rebuild and we responded by doing the honorable thing. 

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

With his time in the league and consistent high level of play, I think Ballard did right by Gilmore. Plus I also think it speaks to where Ballard thought the Colts would be.  Lastly it was not done with just altruistic intentions - Ballard bet he could get more years at a cheaper price with the draft pick. I had no issue with it. 
 

Plus it also happened 7 months ago so who cares?  Can’t believe I just wrote that many damn words on a guy who isn’t even on the team anymore. 

[w87r]

1 hour ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

Colts needed the cap room too. It was beneficial to both parties then. We currently have $8m in space, we cleared almost $10m with the trade.

 

 

Could we of moved money around, sure, but would of needed to clear up about $10m to keep the in season fluff around $8m. Going into future seasons cap to do so.

 

 

 

Circumstances changed later as we know. Easy to look back and question it now.

 

Rodgers gone for Season

Flowers gone for season

[GoColts8818]

8 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

With his time in the league and consistent high level of play, I think Ballard did right by Gilmore. Plus I also think it speaks to where Ballard thought the Colts would be.  Lastly it was not done with just altruistic intentions - Ballard bet he could get more years at a cheaper price with the draft pick. I had no issue with it. 
 

Plus it also happened 7 months ago so who cares?  Can’t believe I just wrote that many damn words on a guy who isn’t even on the team anymore. 

Not to mention he did it thinking he’d have Rodgers too.

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 hour ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

you are not alone on it

[RollerColt]

24 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

you are not alone on it

I will say this:

 

Would the team be better with Gillmore? Absolutely 100%. Would I have been happy had we kept Gillmore? Absolutely! 

But we didn’t. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, RollerColt said:

It’s not really Ballard’s MO to hold players hostage. Stephon wanted out of a rebuild and we responded by doing the honorable thing. 

 

I don't even think it's honorable. Just pragmatic. Older veteran on a team that's not ready to contend, another team is offering a pick, the player has asked to leave, and you want to roll with a bunch of young guys at that position.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If the observations James Boyd made from watching film are true it shows right there why colts just need to keep adding to the CB room.  You can’t have to many good ones and like said above this division is going to be wild with these young quarterbacks.

[RollerColt]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't even think it's honorable. Just pragmatic. Older veteran on a team that's not ready to contend, another team is offering a pick, the player has asked to leave, and you want to roll with a bunch of young guys at that position.

Yeah that’s fair. Saying it’s honorable was probably the wrong phrase. Just good business is probably a better one. 

[ColtStrong2013]

3 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Yes, that is what I understand. My thing is — doesn’t everyone want to go to a contender? Who cares what he wanted. But it seems I’m alone on this one. Everyone seems to think it was important to give Gilmore what he wanted. So yay Gilmore, he might be in the Super Bowl. 

Good luck getting any veteran players on 1-2 year deals going forward with that mentality. He wanted out and I would say more specifically wanted to go to the cowboys, so they made it work for both parties. Buckner thought about it too and Ballard talked him into staying. 

[ShuteAt168]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Good luck getting any veteran players on 1-2 year deals going forward with that mentality. He wanted out and I would say more specifically wanted to go to the cowboys, so they made it work for both parties. Buckner thought about it too and Ballard talked him into staying. 

Did it work for both parties? 

[ShuteAt168]

4 hours ago, jskinnz said:

With his time in the league and consistent high level of play, I think Ballard did right by Gilmore. Plus I also think it speaks to where Ballard thought the Colts would be.  Lastly it was not done with just altruistic intentions - Ballard bet he could get more years at a cheaper price with the draft pick. I had no issue with it. 
 

Plus it also happened 7 months ago so who cares?  Can’t believe I just wrote that many damn words on a guy who isn’t even on the team anymore. 

I think your second sentence is a good point and something I thought about too. I also agree he did right by Gilmore. I just don’t think it helped the team that, you know, CB runs. And the cool kids just scroll on past the “who cares?” posts instead of commenting. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Good luck getting any veteran players on 1-2 year deals going forward with that mentality. He wanted out and I would say more specifically wanted to go to the cowboys, so they made it work for both parties. Buckner thought about it too and Ballard talked him into staying. 

Huh?   
 

Ballard did Gilmore a solid.   Why would that hurt him trying to sign vets to a 1-2 year deal.   It shows Ballard did right by Gilmore.   Why would this hurt Ballard going forward?   I would think it would help him a great deal.