Venturi tells the truth

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Goatface Killah said:

The funny thing about this is if Rick Venturi was the coach right now instead of Gus, and his track record was anywhere near as poor as it was when he was here back in the 80s and early 90s, these same fans would certainly be calling him a * and demanding he be fired. And defense was nowhere near as hard to play back in those days.

 

I think people just call the guy who agrees with them a genius and everyone who doesnt is an *. 

 

The teams Rick coached for had like a 30% winning percentage when he was on the staff. And I believe he was like 1-15 as a head coach.

 

But he agrees with me so hes brilliant!

 

Who here is calling Venturi brilliant, or a genius?

[richard pallo]

I listened to Ballard yesterday and he said He decided to go young in the secondary last year.  He owned up to that.  He said he saw progress on the DL as well.  I think it’s the right decision to let him finish his contract. We know there will be some changes to the defense and the younger guys should improve.  So I can see Steichen and Ballard wanting him back.  I think it’s safe to say they will be expecting another step up for the defense and if it’s not there Gus will be replaced.

[masterlock]

First time I've listened to him, but wow, I don't think I disagree with a single thing he said. Very good football analysis. Right on-point. Kind of Polian-esque in his acumen.

 

For those who missed it, my take-aways:

 

On Pittman:                  

• Tough, physical, does the dirty work, battles for the football
• High-volume catcher due to the way the team is structured
• He makes his living inside the numbers, needs help getting open
• Isn't an outside burner, not twitchy, doesn't win outside battles
• More valuable to the Colts due to lack of receiver corps than he is on the open market
• A context player - 5th in league in catches, but 85th in yards per catch (10.5)
• Production-wise, Pittman more closely resembles the really good TE's and Slots of the league, but isn't a Hill, AJ Brown, etc., which puts his salary closer to $17M/year rather than $23M+
• Shame creates opportunities for him. He's scheme-dependent

On Defense:

• In 2 games vs Colts, Nico Collins went 16-for-346; 30 percent of his total yardage on the season came in 2 games vs Colts
• Defense is 79 percent generic predictable, non-challenging area zone (vs matchup zone)
• Doesn't challenge receivers on the outside or inside
• On Texans 1st play, Bradley strung out a 4.53 corner against a 4.4 wideout - Bradley's fault/scheme
• Texans, in 4th quarter, overcame a 2nd-and-20, 1st-and-20, 2nd-and-14
• Last year, the Colts had an elite corner and yet played exactly the same (28th in points last year, same this year)
• Colts are 14 percent in blitzes (last in league)
• Need to have more of a 'contested' scheme in terms of coverages
• Every receiver who's come in here over the last 2 years has had a "career day"

On Shane:

• Excelled in player utilization, creativity, motivation, accountability
• Seems to question Shane's rush to retain Bradley, says best guys (coaches) always have a bit of ruthlessness to them when it comes to hiring/firing.

On the 4th down call:

• Was good call, not executed
• In crunch time, quotes Tom Moore, "think players not plays"
   

[2006Coltsbestever]

I am one that would prefer Bradley gone. We were 28th this year and in 2022 giving up points. Not stopping teams on 3rd and longs are getting old too. I am just not sure Venturi should be the one giving this advice considering his track record as a DC and Head Coach himself. He was pretty bad at both. 

 

Like I said in an earlier post, if someone like Chuck said the same thing, it would have more validity. 

[Flash7]

19 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Can’t tell anything with this defense until the secondary is fixed

The secondary was fine last year and we had the same defensive issues. The problem is that Gus's defense is too vanilla. There is no disguise to the defensive coverages and we are among the teams with the lowest blitz rates. He simply rushes 4 without many stunts, with zone coverage on the back end.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, masterlock said:

• Seems to question Shane's rush to retain Bradley, says best guys (coaches) always have a bit of ruthlessness to them when it comes to hiring/firing.

 

Yeah, and this kind of bums me out. I think we've seen several examples of Shane's accountability mantra playing out in real life. 

 

We have a bad defense, but apparently decided right away that the DC was safe. That doesn't mean they haven't had conversations behind the scenes about changes and improvements that need to be made, and there could be other changes with the defensive staff I suppose. But concluding that Bradley is the best option for this team right now is kind of disappointing. 

[Solid84]

19 hours ago, chad72 said:

Just like it took a Bob Sutton playoff loss after playoff loss (big comeback for Luck vs Chiefs plus AFCCG where they let Brady convert 3rd down after 3rd down and then never got the ball in 2018 AFCCG OT), Andy Reid finally dumped loyalty in favor of Spags and the result has been 2 SBs.

 

I hope the leash isn’t too long for Gus Bradley for Steichen to realize it too late. Once Gus left Seattle, Dan Quinn led them to 2 SBs in a row as a DC. I guess we haven’t knocked on the division winner door yet for playoff games/losses to matter but the time will come.

I hope they don't hang on to Bradley purely because it's the scheme they want to run - other DCs run similar. I don't mind if they want a 4-3 front with zone coverage. It's what Bradley does within that overall frame I'm unhappy with.

 

I just want a DC who's more flexible in adjusting and gameplaning to specific opponents as well utilizing disguises and more blitzing. And more than just cover 3. Cover 2 zone, Cover 4, Cover 6. Heck mix it up with cover 2 man from time to time. Keep the defense guessing instead of presenting the same few looks play after play.

[NewColtsFan]

18 hours ago, Smonroe said:

@jskinnz your posts always make sense, but I’m having trouble with this one.  I totally agree that the  Bradley D gives up waaaay too many 3rd and longs. 
 

But I don’t see how you can take his personnel out of the equation.  To me, it’s a matter of trust in balancing the aggressiveness of  the D.  
 

Was Flus any better?  IMHO, he was worse.   

Am I reading you right?    You think Flus was WORSE than Bradley?    Is that what I’m reading?   

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

i totally agree with him about Pittman. I think he is a good receiver. I don't see any elite traits and there is no way I open the vault for him. Ask yourself this. When the D coordinator for the opposing team devises his game plan,, do you think he has on his board "need to shut down Pittman"? and I am asking that question with a fully healthy Richardson. I think Ballard maybe forced to sign Pittman because of his poor drafting in being unable to draft wr talent. I think resigning Pittman is more because o we have to rather than we would like to. Just saying. Let us say that Pierce had elevated himself , and I think his development has been stunted by qb play because of the style of game he plays, do you think they would be  resign Pittman? If we had a legit receiver in Pierce and Downs is show promise, I think they would eagerly let him test the free agent market. I think resigning Pittman is similar to resigning Taylor. I think they were in a corner because they really lack any playmakers on offence

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

Pittman has great hands and is a good route runner + he is tough and can take hits. It would be nice to add another WR to help but Pittman is a good solid WR. 

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Yeah and it’s a dumb take.

not really. It’s just his take. Was he important to this team this year? Sure. Doesn’t make him a top tier wideout. 

[Moosejawcolt]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

He is tough as nails, I will  give him that . He has good hands, as he should but I would not say his hands are elite.  I guess  I see what elite traits are important in a receiver   different than you.  I would not say he is an elite route runner. I just think he is a good receiver and people just get up in arms with that. He is a good number 2 and there is nothing wrong with that. I constantly hear even Colts podcasts question if he is a number #!.   You can say he is a #1 on the Colts team if you want and I get it. To me does he fit the prototypical #1 receiver profile and my answer is an absolute no. To me a true #1 is the D coordinator scheming to shut that guy down. Do we play a safety over top and double him and/or do we make sure that our #1 corner is following him all over the field. It is like Moore. Is he  a #1 corner? No, he is a very good nickel. Do you pay Moore #1 corner money? No you do not.  It is the same for Pittmann. I would never pay him  #1 wr money even if the market said I had to. Like a GM said. You get into a lot of trouble when you start playing good players  at elite prices.  I was against the  Taylor contract and it had more to do with I just felt they should have let the year play out because of injury and they could have franchised him. I think Taylor is an elite runner but needs to be a better passer. That being said, he is  a player maker no doubt and I am really not going to all in a dizzy over the signing. Now if they sign Pittman for like 25 mill a year, that would be silly. I would rather let him test free agency and target a wr in the 1st and even move up. I am way more comfortable with that scenario

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Am I reading you right?    You think Flus was WORSE than Bradley?    Is that what I’m reading?   

 

 

 

You sir, are reading me right.  I was glad when he left.  I wouldn't have been upset if Bradley left either.

 

Just MHO.

[Goatface Killah]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Who here is calling Venturi brilliant, or a genius?

Its hyperbole, but the essence of what I posted is absolutely true. 

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

I think that if a guy can catch the 5th most passes in the league without any elite traits, that would be pretty incredible.

 

Moose is basically saying he isnt as fast as Tyreek Hill.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Its hyperbole, but the essence of what I posted is absolutely true. 

 

Got it. That does happen.

 

I think the opposite is more on point in this discussion. Seems like Venturi is being slammed because he wasn't a good coach, not treated as a genius because he has a popular opinion.

[1959Colts]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, and this kind of bums me out. I think we've seen several examples of Shane's accountability mantra playing out in real life. 

 

We have a bad defense, but apparently decided right away that the DC was safe. That doesn't mean they haven't had conversations behind the scenes about changes and improvements that need to be made, and there could be other changes with the defensive staff I suppose. But concluding that Bradley is the best option for this team right now is kind of disappointing. 

I really wonder, if the biggest reason is, that if Steichen and Ballard fired Bradley, they do not know who to replace him with?

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Got it. That does happen.

 

I think the opposite is more on point in this discussion. Seems like Venturi is being slammed because he wasn't a good coach, not treated as a genius because he has a popular opinion.

By me? Maybe. But I dont see much of that. 

 

I look at the merits of the person with the opinion and gauge how much stock I put into it. I never thought Rick was a good coach when he was here. And the fact he never coached in the modern NFL, suggests to me, that he hasnt a clue how hard it is to stop teams from scoring points now. The number 1 defense allowed 44 TDs this year. But when you hear Rick speak, it all sounds like he thinks its so easy. I think he would be embarrassingly bad if he attempted to coach a modern NFL defense. So why do I care what he has to say? 

 

Now as far as Gus, there are times I am also maddened by the problems with playing zone defense and just rushing 4. But I also understand that its even harder to build a defense that can thrive on man coverage and blitzing. Good quarterbacks destroy blitzes and man coverage and almost nobody is actually good at it. 

 

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

My biggest thing about Venturi was he never mentioned it being a coverage bust. He thinks that was an actual coverage. 

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

My biggest thing about Venturi was he never mentioned it being a coverage bust. He thinks that was an actual coverage. 

Right. Sometimes a guy just gets outplayed. And sometimes that has to be acceptable because of how hard it is to do what the player is being asked to do. 

 

For example, if you dont ever ask Jaylon Jones or JuJu to cover a very good receiver with no help, then schematically a team is gonna see that and tear you apart in other ways. And if you do ask them to do it, they are gonna get beat sometimes because the other team has every rule advantage plus the knowledge of the play.

 

But Rick would point out the flaw in the coverage and say nothing about the fact that we cant cover the TE and thats why the corner was put on that island in the first place. 

 

To a fan, every time another team does something positive against your team, its a failure by your team or a bad play call. And Rick talks like a fan a lot of times which is why other fans like him so much. And honestly I like Rick as a commentator, in small doses. I think he does a pretty nice job.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

By me? Maybe. But I dont see much of that. 

 

I look at the merits of the person with the opinion and gauge how much stock I put into it. I never thought Rick was a good coach when he was here. And the fact he never coached in the modern NFL, suggests to me, that he hasnt a clue how hard it is to stop teams from scoring points now. The number 1 defense allowed 44 TDs this year. But when you hear Rick speak, it all sounds like he thinks its so easy. I think he would be embarrassingly bad if he attempted to coach a modern NFL defense. So why do I care what he has to say? 

 

Now as far as Gus, there are times I am also maddened by the problems with playing zone defense and just rushing 4. But I also understand that its even harder to build a defense that can thrive on man coverage and blitzing. Good quarterbacks destroy blitzes and man coverage and almost nobody is actually good at it. 

 

I didn't mean by you, but the first response to this thread is taking a shot at Venturi based on his coaching record. I don't have a problem with being critical of Venturi, I've been critical of him in a lot of ways. My point was just that I didn't think people were propping him up because he has an agreeable opinion on this topic. If anything, it seems the other way around, IMO.

 

Regarding the state of defense in the NFL, I agree somewhat that it's really hard to play good defense right now. I guess you're using yards allowed to judge defense, which is interesting. The Browns would be #1, but their opponents scored 6 non-offensive TDs. And half the league gave up fewer than 38 TDs this year. The Ravens had the best scoring defense, and they gave up 26 TDs, including two non-offensive TDs. I definitely wouldn't agree that 44 TDs is some kind of measuring stick.

 

Despite the fact that it's hard to play defense, there's a pretty obvious distinction between a good defense and a bad defense. That's why, even though the Colts and Browns both had 44 TDs against, the Browns allowed 3.1 fewer points/game, and 79 fewer yards/game.

 

Also, the bolded is overly simplistic. Playing zone and rushing four is part of the frustration for some. But more specifically, it's playing two coverages the overwhelming majority of the time, with less disguise than any other team in the league, and bringing less extra pressure than any other team in the league. 

 

I believe coaching matters. And if it's so hard to play good defense, than finding a DC who can produce good results despite all the difficulties seems like an area where a team can exploit an inefficiency.

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, and this kind of bums me out. I think we've seen several examples of Shane's accountability mantra playing out in real life. 

 

We have a bad defense, but apparently decided right away that the DC was safe. That doesn't mean they haven't had conversations behind the scenes about changes and improvements that need to be made, and there could be other changes with the defensive staff I suppose. But concluding that Bradley is the best option for this team right now is kind of disappointing. 

I am with you on the quick trigger to retain Bradley. Now about them having conversations behind close doors. Shouldn't these have happened during the season and I saw absolutely no changes to this D. The one thing that really bummed me out is this. We had the Texans and they had no wr depth and Collins is the only guy to worry about. He finished with like 190 yards. That to me is a fire able offence and there was nothing done before and/or during the game to take him out. This pattern has happened to many times during Bradley's  tenure with the Colts. I think it is part of the scheme's flaw, the talent but I mean at least try and if you double him and he gets 190, then  u  tip  your cap to Collins!! To me people want to point to that 4 and 1 play but we lost the game because we did nothing to shut down a good receiver playing for a team that had no wr depth.   It is really unconscionable that they lost the game the way they did

[Goatface Killah]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't mean by you, but the first response to this thread is taking a shot at Venturi based on his coaching record. I don't have a problem with being critical of Venturi, I've been critical of him in a lot of ways. My point was just that I didn't think people were propping him up because he has an agreeable opinion on this topic. If anything, it seems the other way around, IMO.

 

Regarding the state of defense in the NFL, I agree somewhat that it's really hard to play good defense right now. I guess you're using yards allowed to judge defense, which is interesting. The Browns would be #1, but their opponents scored 6 non-offensive TDs. And half the league gave up fewer than 38 TDs this year. The Ravens had the best scoring defense, and they gave up 26 TDs, including two non-offensive TDs. I definitely wouldn't agree that 44 TDs is some kind of measuring stick.

 

Despite the fact that it's hard to play defense, there's a pretty obvious distinction between a good defense and a bad defense. That's why, even though the Colts and Browns both had 44 TDs against, the Browns allowed 3.1 fewer points/game, and 79 fewer yards/game.

 

Also, the bolded is overly simplistic. Playing zone and rushing four is part of the frustration for some. But more specifically, it's playing two coverages the overwhelming majority of the time, with less disguise than any other team in the league, and bringing less extra pressure than any other team in the league. 

 

I believe coaching matters. And if it's so hard to play good defense, than finding a DC who can produce good results despite all the difficulties seems like an area where a team can exploit an inefficiency.

I used the Browns solely because they are the only team Ive heard anybody suggest has a great defense this year. And we scored on them fairly easily, as did other teams. Truth is, there are no great defenses anymore, because its illegal to play what I consider great defense.

 

I dont disagree that we need to be more creative. But that doesnt mean its gonna create better results than simply improving what we already do. 

 

The Colts defense already does the 2 of the 3 things I think are most important in the modern NFL, very well. They get sacks and force turnovers. If they can create more consistent pressure, they will check that third box and all of the other stats will improve significantly. JMO 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Goatface Killah said:

The Colts defense already does the 2 of the 3 things I think are most important in the modern NFL, very well. They get sacks and force turnovers. If they can create more consistent pressure, they will check that third box and all of the other stats will improve significantly. JMO 

 

The Colts defense is mediocre at both, and that's being kind. Our schedule was whatever the opposite of a murderer's row would be. Something like 70% of the QBs we faced were backups or backup quality. I take little solace in the fact that we were 5th in total sacks, because we were 21st in pressure rate and total pressures, 17th in TOs, and 15th in TO%. So even the areas in which you give the defense credit, we were middle of the pack, and that's against cupcake offensive opponents.

 

Trevor Lawrence, CJ Stroud, Matthew Stafford, good QBs took our defense apart. Even Derek Carr and Jake Browning had really good games against us. Our run defense broke several times.

 

We had one impressive defensive performance all season, and that was against the Ravens. Coincidentally, that's the game in which Bradley bucked his trend and deployed an unconventional gameplan... 

 

What's more probable than checking that third box is that the Colts will play better QBs in 2024, the anomaly of having a high sack number with a low pressure number will regress to the mean, and we won't be able to pick on Bryce Young and Mitchell Trubisky for turnovers.

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

He was drafted by Ballard there for he can’t be good.  It doesn’t support Moose’s agenda.

[Goatface Killah]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts defense is mediocre at both, and that's being kind. Our schedule was whatever the opposite of a murderer's row would be. Something like 70% of the QBs we faced were backups or backup quality. I take little solace in the fact that we were 5th in total sacks, because we were 21st in pressure rate and total pressures, 17th in TOs, and 15th in TO%. So even the areas in which you give the defense credit, we were middle of the pack, and that's against cupcake offensive opponents.

 

Trevor Lawrence, CJ Stroud, Matthew Stafford, good QBs took our defense apart. Even Derek Carr and Jake Browning had really good games against us. Our run defense broke several times.

 

We had one impressive defensive performance all season, and that was against the Ravens. Coincidentally, that's the game in which Bradley bucked his trend and deployed an unconventional gameplan... 

 

What's more probable than checking that third box is that the Colts will play better QBs in 2024, the anomaly of having a high sack number with a low pressure number will regress to the mean, and we won't be able to pick on Bryce Young and Mitchell Trubisky for turnovers.

The good QBs take everyone apart. If thats your gauge, everyone is mediocre. 

 

Supe, the Colts had the longest turnovers forced streak in the entire league at one point this year, and it was 3 times longer than anyone elses. And they set a franchise record in sacks. 

 

What youre saying is not true. At all. 

[richard pallo]

10 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

I used the Browns solely because they are the only team Ive heard anybody suggest has a great defense this year. And we scored on them fairly easily, as did other teams. Truth is, there are no great defenses anymore, because its illegal to play what I consider great defense.

 

I dont disagree that we need to be more creative. But that doesnt mean its gonna creative better results than simply improving what we already do. 

 

The Colts defense already does the 2 of the 3 things I think are most important in the modern NFL, very well. They get sacks and force turnovers. If they can create more consistent pressure, they will check that third box and all of the other stats will improve significantly. JMO 

I don’t think our defense is as bad as some think.  What the defense needs is more experience in the secondary and a few meaningful additions.  The scheme works.  If you have experienced and good players it doesn’t really matter if the other team knows how you are going to play them.   They have to have better players who will outperform yours.  Gus’s system worked in Seattle because he had the players who could execute it.  Ballard has to get him the players.  For me teams who play man give the advantage to the offense.  The rules are designed to give the advantage to the offense.  So that’s why most teams play zone.  There are only a handful of good to elite shutdown corners but the league is loaded with good to excellent receivers.  Zone works but you need the experienced players who can execute and players who can apply pressure which leads to sacks and turnovers.  If you have a good front four rotation you shouldn’t have to blitz often imo.  They will get the job done.

[adubb84]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts defense is mediocre at both, and that's being kind. Our schedule was whatever the opposite of a murderer's row would be. Something like 70% of the QBs we faced were backups or backup quality. I take little solace in the fact that we were 5th in total sacks, because we were 21st in pressure rate and total pressures, 17th in TOs, and 15th in TO%. So even the areas in which you give the defense credit, we were middle of the pack, and that's against cupcake offensive opponents.

 

Trevor Lawrence, CJ Stroud, Matthew Stafford, good QBs took our defense apart. Even Derek Carr and Jake Browning had really good games against us. Our run defense broke several times.

 

We had one impressive defensive performance all season, and that was against the Ravens. Coincidentally, that's the game in which Bradley bucked his trend and deployed an unconventional gameplan... 

 

What's more probable than checking that third box is that the Colts will play better QBs in 2024, the anomaly of having a high sack number with a low pressure number will regress to the mean, and we won't be able to pick on Bryce Young and Mitchell Trubisky for turnovers.

Seems like a catalyst that subsequently will lead to leaning on the offense even more in 24’ to make up for the deficiencies of the defense. 
 

The more I dig into what Bradley does and how it’s executed the more bummed I get. Seems like an infusion of talent won’t have much of an impact. 
 

I’m REALLY hoping that during self evaluations in the offseason there are some tough conversations being had about embracing more creativity next year. 

[Goatface Killah]

6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think our defense is as bad as some think.  What the defense needs is more experience in the secondary and a few meaningful additions.  The scheme works.  If you have experienced and good players it doesn’t really matter if the other team knows how you are going to play them.   They have to have better players who will outperform yours.  Gus’s system worked in Seattle because he had the players who could execute it.  Ballard has to get him the players.  For me teams who play man give the advantage to the offense.  The rules are designed to give the advantage to the offense.  So that’s why most teams play zone.  There are only a handful of good to elite shutdown corners but the league is loaded with good to excellent receivers.  Zone works but you need the experienced players who can execute and players who can apply pressure which leads to sacks and turnovers.  If you have a good front four rotation you shouldn’t have to blitz often imo.  They will get the job done.

Its definitely not. 

 

You can take any defense in the league and diminish them by pointing out that they cant stop very good QBs like they stop back up QBs. 

 

I dont understand the point in doing that unless its to prop up your opinion which isnt necessarily supported by the results.

 

The franchise sack record cant be a fluke. A turnover streak of 18 games, or whatever, cant be a fluke or a statistical anomoly because the achievements are the anomoly. And to achieve an anomoly takes tremendous skill.

 

The Colts defense did fine against CJ Stroud on Sunday. They got burned on the first play of the game by an incredible throw and play call..........and did very well against him the rest of the game. The kid played great in crunchtime and made some plays that won them the game.

 

So we suck? 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

This thread shouldn't be Bradley vs venturi's past record......remember venturi was around the colts in the 80's and no one including the great Lombardi would have had success in that era with the colts. And if a losing record is what defines a persons worth in football,  then what about Ballard's? 

 

But many here wanted Bradley fired the last two seasons but now know that won't happen because Steinchen said he wants continuity. So your stuck with him.. 

 

And Bradley has been criticized by others in local and national. Questioning, because of injury, the Texans only had one healthy good WR playing and he didn't scheme a strategy to not let him beat them.....but he did beat them. A 75 yard bomb on their first play and then repeatedly throughout the game. 

 

Some of that is on Bradley.... some is on.Ballard for not giving him more talent to see what he does with it.....and some is on Steinchen, as HC, he could have.said.something like "don't let their only healthy quality receiver beat us!"

But maybe he was too busy designing a play for a practice squad player with the season on the line!!! 

[Superman]

47 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

But Rick would point out the flaw in the coverage and say nothing about the fact that we cant cover the TE and thats why the corner was put on that island in the first place. 

 

The #1 guiding principle for Bradley's defense is 'don't get beat deep.' But he put Brents in position to get beat deep by the Texans only noteworthy receiver, and it only took one play for their rookie QB to identify and exploit that decision.

 

And then Nico Collins caught 8 more passes for 120 more yards over the rest of the game. I mean, he's cool, but we made him look unstoppable. Twice.

 

And bigger picture, we don't really stop anybody, unless the QB is bad. 

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

This thread shouldn't be Bradley vs venturi's past record......remember venturi was around the colts in the 80's and no one including the great Lombardi would have had success in that era with the colts. And if a losing record is what defines a persons worth in football,  then what about Ballard's? 

 

But many here wanted Bradley fired the last two seasons but now know that won't happen because Steinchen said he wants continuity. So your stuck with him.. 

 

And Bradley has been criticized by others in local and national. Questioning, because of injury, the Texans only had one healthy good WR playing and he didn't scheme a strategy to not let him beat them.....but he did beat them. A 75 yard bomb on their first play and then repeatedly throughout the game. 

 

Some of that is on Bradley.... some is on.Ballard for not giving him more talent to see what he does with it.....and some is on Steinchen, as HC, he could have.said.something like "don't let their only healthy quality receiver beat us!"

But maybe he was too busy designing a play for a practice squad player with the season on the line!!! 

Hold up, the playcall on the first play was the exact oppositte of Bradleys typical play call. He left a rookie on their best receiver 1 on 1.

 

If anything it highlights the risks of playing man coverage, which his detractors use as THEE SOLUTION.

 

Cmon. 

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The #1 guiding principle for Bradley's defense is 'don't get beat deep.' But he put Brents in position to get beat deep by the Texans only noteworthy receiver, and it only took one play for their rookie QB to identify and exploit that decision.

 

And then Nico Collins caught 8 more passes for 120 more yards over the rest of the game. I mean, he's cool, but we made him look unstoppable. Twice.

 

And bigger picture, we don't really stop anybody, unless the QB is bad. 

Isnt that exactly what you advocate for? Taking more risks? Playing more man coverage?

 

Well........

 

He cant win.

 

He puts the rookie on an island, he gets beat, its a bad call. 

 

He plays zone and rushes four to try and stop plays like that and protect our young corners, its a bad call.

 

He rushes 4 on 5 and they cant get immediate pressure, the pass rush stinks. 

 

He blitzes and allows the RB to catch a screen pass and take it 70 yards, the LBs cant cover. 

 

I mean I just find all this over the top. 

[indyagent17]

20 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Listening to this now. JMV saying Richardson plays reckless like Luck was off the wall. That can’t be further from the truth.

What do you think Andrew retired? Not because he wanted to go skiing because he was hurt too much. He would throw himself headfirst in the tackles and that ended his career. Yes, he was reckless at times, and Richardson needs to learn from that. When he was running that touchdown and he started slowing down that’s when he got hit and that causes first concussion and play the game smart 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

The good QBs take everyone apart. If thats your gauge, everyone is mediocre. 

 

Supe, the Colts had the longest turnovers forced streak in the entire league at one point this year, and it was 3 times longer than anyone elses. And they set a franchise record in sacks. 

 

What youre saying is not true. At all. 

 

By your logic, it doesn't matter who the DC is or what scheme we run, because it's impossible to have a good defense. 

 

The Colts had a turnover streak playing against mostly bad QBs and offenses. They set a franchise record in sacks playing against mostly bad QBs and OLs. And they were still mediocre in both areas. Why would you place so much value on a random streak and an outlier sacks stat?

 

What I'm saying is plainly obvious.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Isnt that exactly what you advocate for? Taking more risks? Playing more man coverage?

 

No. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I've never asked for Bradley to simply take more risks and play more man coverage. 

 

Quote

He puts the rookie on an island, he gets beat, its a bad call. 

 

He didn't put the rookie on an island. It was Cover 3, and the Texans ran a Cover 3 beater. Not exactly rocket science, nearly half of our defensive snaps we play Cover 3.

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, Superman said:

 

By your logic, it doesn't matter who the DC is or what scheme we run, because it's impossible to have a good defense. 

 

The Colts had a turnover streak playing against mostly bad QBs and offenses. They set a franchise record in sacks playing against mostly bad QBs and OLs. And they were still mediocre in both areas. Why would you place so much value on a random streak and an outlier sacks stat?

 

What I'm saying is plainly obvious.

No I think you seem to over value analytics and diminish clear and obvuous stats.

 

Sacks are way better than pressures. We discussed this already. So a framchise record in sacks is gonna be a great accomplishment.

 

You remember that incredible throw to Nico Collins on the final Texans drive?

 

That was a pressure. 

 

So you cant just throw out the franchise sack record and call it mediocre because we didnt get enough of those meaningless pressures. 

 

I wish we wouldve sacked him. We wouldve likely won the game if we did that. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

12 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

What do you think Andrew retired? Not because he wanted to go skiing because he was hurt too much. He would throw himself headfirst in the tackles and that ended his career. Yes, he was reckless at times, and Richardson needs to learn from that. When he was running that touchdown and he started slowing down that’s when he got hit and that causes first concussion and play the game smart 

I was saying Richardson does not play reckless like that. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, Goatface Killah said:

Right. Sometimes a guy just gets outplayed. And sometimes that has to be acceptable because of how hard it is to do what the player is being asked to do. 

 

For example, if you dont ever ask Jaylon Jones or JuJu to cover a very good receiver with no help, then schematically a team is gonna see that and tear you apart in other ways. And if you do ask them to do it, they are gonna get beat sometimes because the other team has every rule advantage plus the knowledge of the play.

 

But Rick would point out the flaw in the coverage and say nothing about the fact that we cant cover the TE and thats why the corner was put on that island in the first place. 

 

To a fan, every time another team does something positive against your team, its a failure by your team or a bad play call. And Rick talks like a fan a lot of times which is why other fans like him so much. And honestly I like Rick as a commentator, in small doses. I think he does a pretty nice job.

I do find when he does the keys to the game every WED before games  to be really informative.  But he just fails to bring up commutation errors ect and thinks everything was how Bradley wanted it played.

[Goatface Killah]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I've never asked for Bradley to simply take more risks and play more man coverage. 

 

 

He didn't put the rookie on an island. It was Cover 3, and the Texans ran a Cover 3 beater. Not exactly rocket science, nearly half of our defensive snaps we play Cover 3.

He plays zone because he doesnt want to take risks. Thats the entire point. If you want him to change that, he is gonna have to take more risks.

 

And if the guys cant execute thats a completely different issue. Brents had no help on that play. Call it a "beater" if you want but its only called that because it ISOLATES him in what is effectively MAN COVERAGE.

 

The answer to that isnt necessarily a different coverage, because they likely check out of the play if they dont get the look they want and come back to it later. The answer is to be better. Get a sack. Cover him 1 on 1. Make a play. 

 

But out of curiosity, what would you have done on that play Supe? What wouldve been your call? And would that have only been the call because you, in hindsight, KNOW THE TEXANS PLAYCALL?

 

Its a lot easier than doing it for real.