Gus Bradley likely staying

[jemack]

Just now, BlackTiger said:

Its not that, we finished 5th in sacks.   The secondary is young and doesnt have a play maker in the group.

 

We will be in the market for line backer with Shaq gone too

I don't have particulars, is there a way to see how many sacks came from blitzes?

[BlackTiger]

Just now, jemack said:

I don't have particulars, is there a way to see how many sacks came from blitzes?

I dont know, I do know our blitz rate is low compared to other teams

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Our D-line coach needs to be retained at any cost and we should probably look at a different secondary coach to develop our young ones, IMO.

 

I agree with KB, I would try and bring in someone like Xavier McKinney from the New York Giants, he would probably cost us 4 years $40 million but would be well worth it to shore up our safety position. Safety position requires more vet experience than the CB position, IMO.

When has Ballard EVER paid a safety $10 mill per?    I think the answer is never.   I don’t see him changing that approach for a safety. 

[ProblChld32]

Honestly I didn’t think that he was going anywhere. If you look at where we ranked in sacks that alone was enough to keep Gus. I knew they weren’t gonna let him go.

[John Waylon]

Shocking. Absolutely shocking, I say.

 

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Its not that, we finished 5th in sacks.   The secondary is young and doesnt have a play maker in the group.

 

We will be in the market for line backer with Shaq gone too

Lack of pressure has been an issue since forever and it still is.

 

2020 — 258 total pressures — 47 sacks // 15.18 pressures per game — 2.76 sacks per game. 
 

2021 — 288 total pressures — 40 sacks // 16.94 ppg — 2.35 spg

 

2022 — 246 total pressures — 47 sacks // 14.47 ppg — 2.76 spg

 

2023 — 281 total pressures — 60 sacks // 16.53 ppg — 3.53 spg. 
 

Over the last 4 seasons pressures and sacks have been fairly consistent - except sacks this season. It’s CLEALRLY an outlier. We’ve made no significant changes yet sacks are significantly higher. An anomaly. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Lack of pressure has been an issue since forever and it still is.

 

2020 — 258 total pressures — 47 sacks // 15.18 pressures per game — 2.76 sacks per game. 
 

2021 — 288 total pressures — 40 sacks // 16.94 ppg — 2.35 spg

 

2022 — 246 total pressures — 47 sacks // 14.47 ppg — 2.76 spg

 

2023 — 281 total pressures — 60 sacks // 16.53 ppg — 3.53 spg. 
 

Over the last 4 seasons pressures and sacks have been fairly consistent - except sacks this season. It’s CLEALRLY an outlier. We’ve made no significant changes yet sacks are significantly higher. An anomaly. 

40-47-60

Looks like sack total is trending upwards to me.

[BlackTiger]

Just now, Solid84 said:

Lack of pressure has been an issue since forever and it still is.

Its not the reason we didnt make the playoffs.  Sacks are worth more than pressure.  

 

We could use a good edge but we also dont have a LB on the team who is good at coverage and our secondary is just a bunch of guys.

 

We are getting sacks now, we lack coverage down the field 

[jemack]

10 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I dont know, I do know our blitz rate is low compared to other teams

I agree. It just seems most of the sacks come from blitzing rather than from our base D.

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

40-47-60

Looks like sack total is trending upwards to me.

Sure when you take out the first 47....

 

The point is there's been no changes that suggests this is something we can count on going forward. It's an anomaly.

[colts89]

Bradleys unit in 2022 was ranked 11th in pass defense and 11th in rush defense if I recall correctly. There was a pretty big downgrade this year, but that primarily had to do with losing DB and LB talent IMO. If Ballard makes moves in those spots, then I would be okay with Bradley returning next year. However, another year with the defensive stats we just put up should force their hands.

[Solid84]

5 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Its not the reason we didnt make the playoffs.  Sacks are worth more than pressure.  

 

We could use a good edge but we also dont have a LB on the team who is good at coverage and our secondary is just a bunch of guys.

 

We are getting sacks now, we lack coverage down the field 

It could be. This defense gave up the 5th most points this season, are you telling me increasing pressure on the opposing QB wouldn't lower that?

 

Yes, sacks are worth more than pressure. Not what I'm saying.

 

I think we have several needs on defense a significant passrush threat among them..

[Two_pound]

Well all I'll say is same old same old for the 53rd consecutive year next season. If we blitzed just 5 or 6 times a game more it would make a huge difference. Though maybe not, have you ever noticed when we do get a sack and put the opponent in a 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 20 we give up the first down anyways because we go to an incredibly soft zone with corners 10-12 yards off the receivers???? It happened last Saturday, Harrison got the sack it was 2nd and 20 and we gave up an 18 yard play to a slow tight end because no one was near him when he caught the ball. Excellent.

[ColtStrong2013]

22 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Agree.  Ballard has tried through the draft.  Kwity, Dayo, Lewis to name a few.  So far no one elite.  He needs to try again this year or go get a proven guy.  I think there is more pressure on him to find one this offseason.  JMO.

the problem for Ballard in that regard is that no player- wouldn’t matter if they were #1 overall, is going to step in and be an elite pass rusher from day one. It takes time, which is what it’s taking. I don’t know that Paye or Dayo is going to be elite, but I think they still have room to grow and take another step into next season. The defensive line took a step this season. Hopefully they’ll do it again next year. And ideally one of those guys turns into a consistent force at the edge. 
 

Buckner is elite. Hands down. So I’m not sure they are as far off as many of us would like to believe. We have to have better secondary play and run defense. You can’t set a franchise sack record, and struggle against the run and pass and blame it all on the defensive line. They all have to work together. Elite pass rushers don’t grow on trees. 

[Hoose]

Ballard and crew aren’t stupid or blind. They know the D lacks playmakers just as they know they need another top WR. The question is if the Colts Brain Trust is willing to spend the $ to get a few difference makers in FA. 
Ballard’s history says no, but this coming year may be a make or break one for him. He needs to get creative and solve the Colts’ talent issues. Just resigning the team’s own key free agents and hoping for a score in the draft won’t move the needle next season. 
 

For this reason, I think the Colts will push the envelope this off season. Meaning: trade a pick for a player; and open up the checkbook for a difference making FA. Something has to change. 

[SR711]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

This is the defense that Ballard wants:

 

"It's always about your fronts," Ballard said. "When you have a good quarterback and you can have a good offensive and defensive line, you've got a chance to win. If that defensive line can get after the quarterback, especially with four people -- I mean y'all lived it. Y'all lived it for a long time here in Indy when you had (Dwight) Freeney and (Robert) Mathis coming off the edge when Tony was the head coach. That makes all the difference in the world and covers up for a lot of your mistakes in the back end."

 

Look, Chris, you can rush 4 people when you have Freeney and Mathis. When you don't, you need to mix it up.

 

Gus runs the defense that Ballard wants in Indy. Rush 4 people and cover on the back end. Bland. Vanilla. Opposing QBs love it.

 

Thank you for posting this.  

 

I consider myself to be a die-hard fan of this team, but at the end of the day, this is one of the reasons why I am not overly optimistic that the franchise headed back to greatness.  

 

Those in charge simply are change-averse no matter how much evidence there is that one may be beneficial. 

 

Bradley's scheme and even Dungy's scheme are ones where the X's and O's does not lift up/enrich the talent but rather its the talent on the field that has to lift up the scheme.  Yes, I understand that if we have a dominant DE/edge rusher (like Freeney, Mathis), high instinct safety who can cover ground, etc Bradley's D will look a whole lot better, but where exactly is this influx of talent going to come from in 1-2 years?  Ballard in 7 years has not shown he can draft a dominant D-lineman.  We most certainly are not going to trade for one or get into a bidding war in FA.  

 

Get ready for a rinse, repeat year in 2024 when it come to this defense.  

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

the problem for Ballard in that regard is that no player- wouldn’t matter if they were #1 overall, is going to step in and be an elite pass rusher from day one. It takes time, which is what it’s taking. I don’t know that Paye or Dayo is going to be elite, but I think they still have room to grow and take another step into next season. The defensive line took a step this season. Hopefully they’ll do it again next year. And ideally one of those guys turns into a consistent force at the edge. 
 

Buckner is elite. Hands down. So I’m not sure they are as far off as many of us would like to believe. We have to have better secondary play and run defense. You can’t set a franchise sack record, and struggle against the run and pass and blame it all on the defensive line. They all have to work together. Elite pass rushers don’t grow on trees. 

Ballard went out and traded for Buckner because 3t’s don’t grow on trees either.  He was a big acquisition for us.  He should go out and get the ER the same way.  Then we’re not wasting time developing one.  Instant production.  Can’t beat it.

[AKB]

Bitter sweet rn 

[BlackTiger]

21 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think we have several needs on defense a significant passrush threat among them..

Sure but its not whats really wrong right now.  Most teams would take a good edge player no matter what they have already

 

Theres not always going to be pressure, we need guys that can cover too.  We dont have that at the second level and our third level are just guys

 

I could still see using a high pick on edge because they go early 

[Rolltide_gocolts]

If we’re smart.. we should can Gus…. Hire AL Harris db coach from cowboys as DC 

[Bravo]

1 hour ago, tweezy32 said:

i felt like gus had our cbs up more against the Texans in that last game? I think we wernt giving them cushion like we usually do which was good to see. Did anyone else notice that too or was that just me lol

We were giving them a huge cushion until we got to the Redzone.

 

The Texans ran short out routes multiple plays in a row on multiple drives to drive right down the field.

 

It was hard to watch.

[BlackTiger]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

We were giving them a huge cushion until we got to the Redzone.

They probably feel our CBs need that.  We dont have much talent or depth at that position 

[Rolltide_gocolts]

Just now, Bravo said:

We were giving them a huge cushion until we got to the Redzone.

 

The Texans ran short out routes multiple plays in a row on multiple drives to drive right down the field.

 

It was hard to watch.

Texans

 raiders

 jaguars

 ravens

 rams

 falcons

 bengals

 titans

 saints

 buccaneers

 

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, stitches said:

It is what it is. Right now IMO the (lack of) talent at key positions for this D is more of a limiting factor than the defensive coordinator. Or are you going to tell me another coach would severely outperformed what Gus did with that secondary? With no household name at EDGE? I think this is about the limit of this group. We need better talent (or the talent on the roster to develop and some of them might because they are young)... 

 

I agree that the defense is limited by the personnel, but that's what the offseason is for. I assume we'll have some potential upgrades on defense.

 

The question that I think is more relevant is whether you think the defense is limited by the scheme. Because even with an upgraded roster, if the scheme is limiting output, then the ceiling is capped by coaching.

 

To me, that's an easy yes. There are a lot of zone based, four man rush defenses in the league. The Colts defense is one of the most conservative defenses in the NFL. We make vanilla look spicy and exotic. And the advantage is supposed to be that we don't give up big plays, but we see how that's been working. 

 

So we don't get any creativity from the defensive scheme, and we don't get the benefit of not giving up explosive plays. So what's the advantage? What is Gus bringing to the table, other than predictability?

 

This defense is middling to bad in most statistical categories, and this is in a season where offensive output was seriously muted -- more offensive penalties, a ton of QB injuries, etc. The Colts played six backup QBs, (Walker, Levis,  Browning , Trubisky, Heinicke, O'Connell -- three rookies included in bold), and went 3-3 against them. Two rookie starters in three other games (Young, and Stroud twice, and he worked our defense both times), three journeyman starters (Tannehill, Carr, Mayfield), and one of the worst QBs in recent history (Mac Jones). We played a soft defensive schedule, and were still barely average overall.

 

I think it's a huge mistake to keep Bradley and not require changes to his approach, in the name of "continuity." I actually think it's contrary to Steichen's message of accountability. Bradley's way of running the defense isn't good enough, and the results are obvious.

[indyagent17]

I strongly disagree. Bradley  is very conservative and even though we don’t have all of our players on defense I just don’t like his style and what else is Coach going to say. I get a feeling that when he looks at his own options, he may pick somebody else over the choice he was forced to take. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

58 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Sure when you take out the first 47....

 

The point is there's been no changes that suggests this is something we can count on going forward. It's an anomaly.

Sack total is trending in a positive direction under Gus. Spin it any way you wish.

[chad72]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

When has Ballard EVER paid a safety $10 mill per?    I think the answer is never.   I don’t see him changing that approach for a safety. 

 

This off season has to be different, and is going to be different. Safety, Interior DL and OL, all require vet experience to play at a high level. CBs, WRs/TEs/RBs, OTs can hit the ground running with simpler assignments, IMO, hence better candidates to dip into the draft for. A generational OG like Nelson doesn't come around too often and if they do, you need to be picking around the Top 5 to get them, like we did.

 

While I am not getting my hopes up so that it won't be squashed, the investment in the safety position would be worth it because the upper echelon safeties won't be paid nearly as much as an elite CB or pass rusher or WR, that is clearly the case based on market value. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

Sure when you take out the first 47....

 

The point is there's been no changes that suggests this is something we can count on going forward. It's an anomaly.

Sure...take out the 47 and while your at it, take out this years 60 too...lol

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree that the defense is limited by the personnel, but that's what the offseason is for. I assume we'll have some potential upgrades on defense.

 

The question that I think is more relevant is whether you think the defense is limited by the scheme. Because even with an upgraded roster, if the scheme is limiting output, then the ceiling is capped by coaching.

 

To me, that's an easy yes. There are a lot of zone based, four man rush defenses in the league. The Colts defense is one of the most conservative defenses in the NFL. We make vanilla look spicy and exotic. And the advantage is supposed to be that we don't give up big plays, but we see how that's been working. 

 

So we don't get any creativity from the defensive scheme, and we don't get the benefit of not giving up explosive plays. So what's the advantage? What is Gus bringing to the table, other than predictability?

 

This defense is middling to bad in most statistical categories, and this is in a season where offensive output was seriously muted -- more offensive penalties, a ton of QB injuries, etc. The Colts played six backup QBs, (Walker, Levis,  Browning , Trubisky, Heinicke, O'Connell -- three rookies included in bold), and went 3-3 against them. Two rookie starters in three other games (Young, and Stroud twice, and he worked our defense both times), three journeyman starters (Tannehill, Carr, Mayfield), and one of the worst QBs in recent history (Mac Jones). We played a soft defensive schedule, and were still barely average overall.

 

I think it's a huge mistake to keep Bradley and not require changes to his approach, in the name of "continuity." I actually think it's contrary to Steichen's message of accountability. Bradley's way of running the defense isn't good enough, and the results are obvious.

I think you are right about the ceiling of this defense. This scheme limits the ceiling you can achieve. But for that you need premium talent that I'm not sure Ballard is willing to invest in. For example, I think a shut-down corner is a must in today's league, but Ballard doesn't seem willing to spend big resources on that position. It goes straight against his philosophy of building from the inside out. A second round pick is the highest he's given for a CB and 10-11M is the most he's given in FA for one. But for that scheme that type of talent is probably an overkill so Ballard won't spend on it IMO. He might take multiple shots(like he did last year), but I doubt he will pay either top of market money or spend a 1st round pick for one. I think you need to trust your secondary to lock down the opposing receivers if you want to play a more adventurous defense on the front(more blitzing, more disquises, etc.) ... in the simplest of terms - you just need better talent. 

 

I still want to point out that the defensive scheme we are playing is VERY LIKELY a mandate from Ballard. If it's not Gus, it will be someone else runing similar scheme. And if we think the scheme is the problem then we should really be looking 2 steps above Gus for solution to that problem. 

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2024/01/08/colts-shane-steichen-on-future-of-defensive-coordinator-gus-bradley/72148737007/
 

 

If this is correct than Steichen must believe he is a good coach, and he has had success before with talent. This tells me that Steichen does not believe coaching is the problem and it is more of a lack of talent issue. Interesting!!!! I am somewhat amazed that he is keeping Gus, but Steichen is a very smart guy, so we are told, so I tend to put some faith in his evaluation of the defense and what is the issue as to why it is not performing. They ranked at the bottom in most defensive categories. I am not a fan of this scheme but i have always said an evaluation of Gus is somewhat difficult, as I don't think he has near the defense to run this defense successfully.  The Dline needs a couple of playmakers

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

I strongly disagree. Bradley  is very conservative and even though we don’t have all of our players on defense I just don’t like his style and what else is Coach going to say. I get a feeling that when he looks at his own options, he may pick somebody else over the choice he was forced to take. 

 

You should listen to what he said. Steichen is a master of coach speak, and he all but verified that Bradley is coming back.

 

Maybe Gus decides to retire, but Steichen isn't dismissing him.

[Moosejawcolt]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I think you are right about the ceiling of this defense. This scheme limits the ceiling you can achieve. But for that you need premium talent that I'm not sure Ballard is willing to invest in. For example, I think a shut-down corner is a must in today's league, but Ballard doesn't seem willing to spend big resources on that position. It goes straight against his philosophy of building from the inside out. A second round pick is the highest he's given for a CB and 10-11M is the most he's given in FA for one. But for that scheme that type of talent is probably an overkill so Ballard won't spend on it IMO. He might take multiple shots(like he did last year), but I doubt he will pay either top of market money or spend a 1st round pick for one. I think you need to trust your secondary to lock down the opposing receivers if you want to play a more adventurous defense on the front(more blitzing, more disquises, etc.) ... in the simplest of terms - you just need better talent. 

 

I still want to point out that the defensive scheme we are playing is VERY LIKELY a mandate from Ballard. If it's not Gus, it will be someone else runing similar scheme. And if we think the scheme is the problem then we should really be looking 2 steps above Gus for solution to that problem. 

Based on the year that Steichen had with the talent that he has been provided, I truly believe he has more credibility in the building  than Ballard moving forward, If he is keeping Gus, it is because of Steichen and I believe he is not being pressured to make that decision. 

[Solid84]

15 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Sack total is trending in a positive direction under Gus. Spin it any way you wish.

Two seasons is not enough to call anything trend…

[Moosejawcolt]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree that the defense is limited by the personnel, but that's what the offseason is for. I assume we'll have some potential upgrades on defense.

 

The question that I think is more relevant is whether you think the defense is limited by the scheme. Because even with an upgraded roster, if the scheme is limiting output, then the ceiling is capped by coaching.

 

To me, that's an easy yes. There are a lot of zone based, four man rush defenses in the league. The Colts defense is one of the most conservative defenses in the NFL. We make vanilla look spicy and exotic. And the advantage is supposed to be that we don't give up big plays, but we see how that's been working. 

 

So we don't get any creativity from the defensive scheme, and we don't get the benefit of not giving up explosive plays. So what's the advantage? What is Gus bringing to the table, other than predictability?

 

This defense is middling to bad in most statistical categories, and this is in a season where offensive output was seriously muted -- more offensive penalties, a ton of QB injuries, etc. The Colts played six backup QBs, (Walker, Levis,  Browning , Trubisky, Heinicke, O'Connell -- three rookies included in bold), and went 3-3 against them. Two rookie starters in three other games (Young, and Stroud twice, and he worked our defense both times), three journeyman starters (Tannehill, Carr, Mayfield), and one of the worst QBs in recent history (Mac Jones). We played a soft defensive schedule, and were still barely average overall.

 

I think it's a huge mistake to keep Bradley and not require changes to his approach, in the name of "continuity." I actually think it's contrary to Steichen's message of accountability. Bradley's way of running the defense isn't good enough, and the results are obvious.

I am very high on Steichen based on the win total,  although cup cake schedule, but I must admit that I am perplexed as to why he would come out and say that now and not sit back and totally evaluate Gus' tenure with his team. I have been on record that I am not a fan of this defense at all as I think it has gone the way of the dodo.  We are not close to having a dominant Dline in order to run this defense effectively. Like I said, I am a little stunned that they are  keeping him and Steichen seems like such an aggressive guy and this defense is not aggressive at all. Maybe  Steichen is going to impose more of his  own ideas in the offseason on  how he thinks the  defense should be run and Gus may not like where it is heading and decide to part ways. Totally surprised to be honest.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Shane never said he was staying. He also said he would be meeting with Ballard next couple days to talk about FA and other stuff.

[1959Colts]

 

 

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Shane never said he was staying. He also said he would be meeting with Ballard next couple days to talk about FA and other stuff.

Reading between the lines of Steichen comments... It sure sounds like Gus is coming back. He specifically says how he wants continuity. I was expecting this today. The old vote of confidence

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, 1959Colts said:

 

 

Reading between the lines of Steichen comments... It sure sounds like Gus is coming back. He specifically says how he wants continuity.

Yep. He probably is. Just saying him and Ballard have not talked yet about offseason moves and charges. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think you are right about the ceiling of this defense. This scheme limits the ceiling you can achieve. But for that you need premium talent that I'm not sure Ballard is willing to invest in. For example, I think a shut-down corner is a must in today's league, but Ballard doesn't seem willing to spend big resources on that position. It goes straight against his philosophy of building from the inside out. A second round pick is the highest he's given for a CB and 10-11M is the most he's given in FA for one. But for that scheme that type of talent is probably an overkill so Ballard won't spend on it IMO. He might take multiple shots(like he did last year), but I doubt he will pay either top of market money or spend a 1st round pick for one. I think you need to trust your secondary to lock down the opposing receivers if you want to play a more adventurous defense on the front(more blitzing, more disquises, etc.) ... in the simplest of terms - you just need better talent. 

 

I still want to point out that the defensive scheme we are playing is VERY LIKELY a mandate from Ballard. If it's not Gus, it will be someone else runing similar scheme. And if we think the scheme is the problem then we should really be looking 2 steps above Gus for solution to that problem. 

 

I don't think a shutdown corner changes our defense if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 almost exclusively, with virtually no pre-snap disguise. It's almost a waste of resources.

 

And while we keep talking about "scheme," some specificity would be good. Ballard wants a zone based defense that can get consistent pressure with a four man rush, while limiting big plays. (With Gus, we have a zone based defense. We don't get consistent pressure, and we don't limit big plays. So one out of three on that mandate, IMO.) I don't know that Ballard wants a defense that only plays two coverages and never disguises, and that's my main problem with Gus. We can probably get better pass rush with some improvement up front, but if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 70% of the time, we're still going to get picked apart by good QBs. Did we contest a single pass against Houston??

 

I think we can be a top ten defense even if we're zone based, four man rush, without a traditional shutdown corner. But we need to play more coverages, we need some disguise, and we need to allow our DBs to play closer to the line of scrimmage more often. (We also need better pass rush, and better tackling, but that's more about personnel than scheme, IMO.) I think there's room for more blitzing also, but there are games where Bradley brings extra pressure, so I think maybe there's something to work with there. That's what I mean by scheme. We're not going to hire anyone who runs 50% man coverage, or who blitzes 30% of the time. What I want is someone who isn't simultaneously so afraid of being beat deep that he runs the most conservative defense in the league, while also getting beat deep two or three times a game.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

Ballard went out and traded for Buckner because 3t’s don’t grow on trees either.  He was a big acquisition for us.  He should go out and get the ER the same way.  Then we’re not wasting time developing one.  Instant production.  Can’t beat it.

Gotta find a team willing to give them up.  Aside from QBs ERs are the hardest position to find.  It’s very rare for them to become available other than the draft.  Also, the situation with Buckner was a perfect storm that doesn’t happen every day either.  It’s rare for players that good and young to become available.  If they do I am sure Ballard would explore if I am just not sure it will happen. 

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think a shutdown corner changes our defense if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 almost exclusively, with virtually no pre-snap disguise. It's almost a waste of resources.

 

And while we keep talking about "scheme," some specificity would be good. Ballard wants a zone based defense that can get consistent pressure with a four man rush, while limiting big plays. (With Gus, we have a zone based defense. We don't get consistent pressure, and we don't limit big plays. So one out of three on that mandate, IMO.) I don't know that Ballard wants a defense that only plays two coverages and never disguises, and that's my main problem with Gus. We can probably get better pass rush with some improvement up front, but if we're playing Cover 3 and Cover 4 70% of the time, we're still going to get picked apart by good QBs. Did we contest a single pass against Houston??

 

Absolutely agreed. Gus is playing the type of D Ballard wants. Agreed on the disguises too, but IMO that's a smaller part of the problem. The big problem is that both Ballard and Gus(and whoever else Ballard decides to hire) will rush with 4, play zone heavy and practically never blitz(and that type of scheme is severely dependent on the front 4 being able to disrupt the pass, because you are not disrupting it with the secondary). We were one of the least blitzing teams with Eberflus and we continue on this trend now with Gus. And once we fire Gus, Ballard will go out and find himself yet another coach who plays that same defense. Remember when the Giants DC interviewed for us and after that he said something to the effect that the Colts didn't seem like they wanted to give him the freedom to run schematically what he wants. IMO this is precisely the root of the problem - it's not Gus or Eberflus or whoever else we hire. It's Ballard who wants that defense. 

 

Agreed on everything else, don't get me wrong - I hate watching this defense play. I'm not defending the defense. I'm defending the "messenger" here. 

 

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think we can be a top ten defense even if we're zone based, four man rush, without a traditional shutdown corner. But we need to play more coverages, we need some disguise, and we need to allow our DBs to play closer to the line of scrimmage more often. (We also need better pass rush, and better tackling, but that's more about personnel than scheme, IMO.) I think there's room for more blitzing also, but there are games where Bradley brings extra pressure, so I think maybe there's something to work with there. That's what I mean by scheme. We're not going to hire anyone who runs 50% man coverage, or who blitzes 30% of the time. What I want is someone who isn't simultaneously so afraid of being beat deep that he runs the most conservative defense in the league, while also getting beat deep two or three times a game.

 

I think we probably can be better defense with this scheme... but again... we need better talent. We need better pass-rush to begin with and we need better and more consistent secondary. And on bringing in someone who isn't so afraid to get beat deep - I think it's probably one of Ballard's philosophical principles - one of the priorities for his defense he sees is not giving up big plays.