Venturi tells the truth

[indyagent17]

But all of us disagree with the fact that, for as many years, I can remember our defensive coordinators have always played way off the ball and we always get sick about how they drape all over us and don’t give us any room to catch. That’s the coordinator that I want there is gonna be risks but if you’re gonna give up 25 to 30 points a game, let receivers go off the hook for over 100 yards every game so how risky is it to change?  As Venturi said we make kingmakers out of very average quarterbacks. Look who we lost to this year. It’s sickening Cincinnati tore us up with Browning and then they got popped the next week Atlanta rain all over us in the Bears in the next week. It’s all about defense and intimidation right now we have nothing to brag about in our truly the laughingstock of the NFL and have been for a very long time with this defense

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

But all of us disagree with the fact that, for as many years, I can remember our defensive coordinators have always played way off the ball and we always get sick about how they drape all over us and don’t give us any room to catch. That’s the coordinator that I want there is gonna be risks but if you’re gonna give up 25 to 30 points a game, let receivers go off the hook for over 100 yards every game so how risky is it to change? 

Because the kind of change youre speaking of requires bringing in a different coach with a different philosophy, which also requires bringing in different players. And that is basically hitting the reset button. You lose all the positive things youve built over time, and there are positive things I have pointed out here.....and effectively start from scratch.

 

Some people believe that improving your playcalling, talent and execution is just a better way to address it.

 

I personally think the scheme is fine. Our secondary was an issue this year, which I expected. 

 

 

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Goatface Killah said:

Because the kind of change youre speaking of requires bringing in a different coach with a different philosophy, which also requires bringing in different players. And that is basically hitting the reset button. You lose all the positive things youve built over time, and there are positive things I have pointed out here.....and effectively start from scratch.

 

Some people believe that improving your playcalling, talent and execution is just a better way to address it.

 

I personally think the scheme is fine. Our secondary was an issue this year, which I expected. 

 

 

To be honest,  the "cushion" has been an issue for 20 plus years.   No matter who the HC or DC has been.   Maybe it's an Irsay philosophy. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

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

Moose….   I’m long on record that while MOJ is our CURRENT WR1, I would like some better.   I want someone faster, more explosive and someone our opponents might even fear.  So eventually, we’d keep MPJ and he’d become our WR2.   By that I mean our second best WR.   Downs would be our WR3 and Pierce would be our WR4.   
 

I’ve always liked MPJ.  I’m glad we drafted him.  Hope he stays with us for many more years.   But I too want somebody better.  Fortunately, this draft class is said to be GREAT with receivers.  I’m confident Steichen will find one he loves. 

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

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

Pretty sure Houston did scheme to take Pittman out last week.   

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

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. 

 

I'm not overvaluing analytics, you're just ignoring what I'm saying. Sacks are obviously more important than pressures.

 

However, sacks are a result of pressure. That means the more pressures you get, the more sacks you can expect. We got 51 sacks on 127 pressures, converting 40.1% of pressures to sacks. However, in 2022, we had 37 sacks on 134 pressures, just a 27.6% conversion rate. So if more pressures generally means more sacks, why did we get more sacks in 2023 despite fewer pressures? Same pass rushers, same scheme, but a significant variance in conversion rate. Is there a reason? Is it sustainable? Don't you want to know the answers?

 

I think the answer is obvious -- we played bad QBs, bad OLs, bad offenses. If you have another theory, I'd love to hear it. Or maybe you're just satisfied because we set a franchise record in total sacks.

 

And even if we were to settle on some other reason why we're able to convert at such a high rate, even if you think it's sustainable, there's still value in pressure rate. I'd rather have more pressures, the same number of sacks, and a lower conversion rate, because that's more plays on which we're affecting the QB.

[indyagent17]

16 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Because the kind of change youre speaking of requires bringing in a different coach with a different philosophy, which also requires bringing in different players. And that is basically hitting the reset button. You lose all the positive things youve built over time, and there are positive things I have pointed out here.....and effectively start from scratch.

 

Some people believe that improving your playcalling, talent and execution is just a better way to address it.

 

I personally think the scheme is fine. Our secondary was an issue this year, which I expected. 

 

 

Nope,not new players. how do you think defenses get better? It’s all about scheme it’s all about philosophy first. if you have a lay 7-10 yards philosophy it’s never gonna work. We have defensive backs with a good speed. Just be aggressive being passive is never gonna win us a championship again. Good offenses get you into the playoffs. Great defenses win the Super Bowl It didn’t work for Gilmore and it won’t for any other that we have. We can’t simply play so passive.

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not overvaluing analytics, you're just ignoring what I'm saying. Sacks are obviously more important than pressures.

 

However, sacks are a result of pressure. That means the more pressures you get, the more sacks you can expect. We got 51 sacks on 127 pressures, converting 40.1% of pressures to sacks. However, in 2022, we had 37 sacks on 134 pressures, just a 27.6% conversion rate. So if more pressures generally means more sacks, why did we get more sacks in 2023 despite fewer pressures? Same pass rushers, same scheme, but a significant variance in conversion rate. Is there a reason? Is it sustainable? Don't you want to know the answers?

 

I think the answer is obvious -- we played bad QBs, bad OLs, bad offenses. If you have another theory, I'd love to hear it. Or maybe you're just satisfied because we set a franchise record in total sacks.

 

And even if we were to settle on some other reason why we're able to convert at such a high rate, even if you think it's sustainable, there's still value in pressure rate. I'd rather have more pressures, the same number of sacks, and a lower conversion rate, because that's more plays on which we're affecting the QB.

No I think sacks are their own thing and more pressures dont always equal more sacks. Sacks are a clear win. Usually it means your first move was effective. I think we got more sacks this year because Dayo and Kwity developed and were just better with their initial move. I also think Ebukam was really good for us and when he win, he won early. Some guys just dont get off blocks very well. Thats what seperates great rushers from good rushers, they win early and late.

 

And I think really good QBs are very hard to sack. So youre never gonna sack good QBs unless they have a horrible OL......and then thats just another thing to point to that diminishes your play. 

 

Im just not a fan of trying to knock an accomplishment with analytics. Thats not what they are for. They are for evaluating areas of performance. Pressure rate is designed to evaluate the frequency of your pressures. Thats it. And yes we could absolutely be better at that. I already said I also want more pressures. I also want a more stout run defense.

 

I have plenty of criticisms of this defense.

 

i just dont blame Gus and his scheme every time. he has been in the league a long time and knows how to stop this stuff. As long as the team feels like he is a good teacher, I think he is fine at DC. I like his scheme and happen to think its plenty adequate for this pass happy league. 

 

I want JuJu to get an entire offseason healthy so he can get ready for next year and I think he covers that play much, much better. 

[Goatface Killah]

9 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

Nope,not new players. how do you think defenses get better? It’s all about scheme it’s all about philosophy first. if you have a lay 7-10 yards philosophy it’s never gonna work. We have defensive backs with a good speed. Just be aggressive being passive is never gonna win us a championship again. Good offenses get you into the playoffs. Great defenses win the Super Bowl It didn’t work for Gilmore and it won’t for any other that we have. We can’t simply play so passive.

Player development.

 

I think you can play a conservative play call, with aggression. 

[Goatface Killah]

26 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

To be honest,  the "cushion" has been an issue for 20 plus years.   No matter who the HC or DC has been.   Maybe it's an Irsay philosophy. 

Honestly I just think everytime a guy gets beat people act like the DC told him to stand 2 yards behind the sticks and let him get the first down. 

 

The player was just too slow to read the play and react.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

No I think sacks are their own thing and more pressures dont always equal more sacks. Sacks are a clear win. Usually it means your first move was effective. I think we got more sacks this year because Dayo and Kwity developed and were just better with their initial move. I also think Ebukam was really good for us and when he win, he won early. Some guys just dont get off blocks very well. Thats what seperates great rushers from good rushers, they win early and late.

 

If Dayo, Kwity, and Ebukam provided better pass rush than we had in 2022, then why didn't that result in more total pressures in 2023? It only led to more sacks?

 

You're not allowing any room for the poor QB/OL play that we faced in 2023 to have influenced that statistical variance?

 

Quote

And I think really good QBs are very hard to sack. So youre never gonna sack good QBs unless they have a horrible OL......and then thats just another thing to point to that diminishes your play. 

 

Good QBs are hard to sack... doesn't that support the argument that our increased sack rate in 2023 is influenced by the quality of QBing that we faced? Also, doesn't it explain why some are so fixated on the idea of getting more pressure on the QB? We were 21st in pressures and pressure rate against bad QBs, what will that look like against good QBs?

 

Quote

Im just not a fan of trying to knock an accomplishment with analytics. Thats not what they are for. They are for evaluating areas of performance. Pressure rate is designed to evaluate the frequency of your pressures. Thats it. And yes we could absolutely be better at that. I already said I also want more pressures. I also want a more stout run defense.

 

The stats are what they are, they're leading us to an understanding of the quality of the pass rush. It seems like you want the analysis to stop at total sacks, so we can say 'we must have a pretty good pass rush, we had 51 sacks.' You're basically separating the quality of the pass rush and the resulting sacks from the pressure rate, which I think is faulty reasoning.

 

Quote

i just dont blame Gus and his scheme every time. he has been in the league a long time and knows how to stop this stuff. As long as the team feels like he is a good teacher, I think he is fine at DC. I like his scheme and happen to think its plenty adequate for this pass happy league. 

 

I don't blame Gus and his scheme every time, either. A lot of this conversation is happening in the margins at this point, but there are obviously other factors involved. Roster quality, experience, health, quality of opponent, execution, etc. One of the biggest problems with the defense was tackling, and I don't think that's a scheme issue at all.

 

But I think the way he runs his defense is too conservative to have success. And that's not about zone coverage with a four man rush. It's more about such high reliance on two primary coverages, with little disguise. And while I think there's room for more blitzing, I think that's a more game/situation specific element.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Goatface Killah said:

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.

 

I've never argued that the problem with Bradley's scheme is that he relies on zone coverage. I said he only plays two coverages the majority of the time, and offers little disguise to either of them.

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

It seems like you think the defense is beat the moment they step on the field. And the only way to hope for a stop is if one guy can make a play, so scheme is irrelevant.

 

What I'm saying is that Bradley's entire approach is 'don't get beat deep,' and his scheme broke on the first play. So if the scheme doesn't hold up, and the only hope we have is for a player to transcend, then what is Bradley bringing to the table? 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Do you want me to do Bradley's job, scout the Texans offense, examine our defense, devise a gameplan, and teach it to the players? I think we should close this thread, and maybe shut down the forum entirely, if that's where we're headed.

 

The entire foundation of Bradley's defense -- the reason he's so conservative to begin with -- is don't get beat deep. If he can't call a game that doesn't allow the Texans #1 option to get behind our defense on the very first play, then what did he do all week in preparation for the game? I'm not calling it easy, and sometimes you get beat by good players, but it's the entire focus of his scheme.

 

I'd complain about Bradley a lot less if his conservative approach basically eliminated big plays. We endure the adverse results of his conservative approach by allowing a ton of short completions and first downs, and we don't get the intended benefits because we still give up big plays!

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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. 

he’s an analyst now. It’s his job. He was asked questions on JMV so he answered them. His record was 30 years ago for christs sake. I know you don’t really have as much of an issue as others, it just seems to keep coming up. I don’t think it matters. You learn a lot over the course of 30 years and as an observer I’m sure he’d do things differently now as a coach. I like his takes. 

[richard pallo]

Seems like a waste of time to keep complaining about Gus.  They didn’t replace him he’s our coach and hopefully Ballard can get him a few more playmakers.  On to 2024.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Seems like a waste of time to keep complaining about Gus.  They didn’t replace him he’s our coach and hopefully Ballard can get him a few more playmakers.  On to 2024.

 

It's a waste of time to tell people that a topic they want to discuss is a waste of time. 

[Goatface Killah]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've never argued that the problem with Bradley's scheme is that he relies on zone coverage. I said he only plays two coverages the majority of the time, and offers little disguise to either of them.

 

 

It seems like you think the defense is beat the moment they step on the field. And the only way to hope for a stop is if one guy can make a play, so scheme is irrelevant.

 

What I'm saying is that Bradley's entire approach is 'don't get beat deep,' and his scheme broke on the first play. So if the scheme doesn't hold up, and the only hope we have is for a player to transcend, then what is Bradley bringing to the table? 

 

 

Do you want me to do Bradley's job, scout the Texans offense, examine our defense, devise a gameplan, and teach it to the players? I think we should close this thread, and maybe shut down the forum entirely, if that's where we're headed.

 

The entire foundation of Bradley's defense -- the reason he's so conservative to begin with -- is don't get beat deep. If he can't call a game that doesn't allow the Texans #1 option to get behind our defense on the very first play, then what did he do all week in preparation for the game? I'm not calling it easy, and sometimes you get beat by good players, but it's the entire focus of his scheme.

 

I'd complain about Bradley a lot less if his conservative approach basically eliminated big plays. We endure the adverse results of his conservative approach by allowing a ton of short completions and first downs, and we don't get the intended benefits because we still give up big plays!

1. I dont feel like that play is an accurate represemtation of Bradleys scheme, properly executed.

 

2. We had an unusually inexperienced group of corners. 

 

3. All schemes requires players to execute and make plays against the perfect playcalls.

[richard pallo]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's a waste of time to tell people that a topic they want to discuss is a waste of time. 

You’re good at beating a dead horse.  Lol

[GoColts8818]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's a waste of time to tell people that a topic they want to discuss is a waste of time. 

Weren’t you the same person a week ago telling me I was on the record and didn’t need to keep discussing something when I was discussing something I wanted to discuss?  
 

discuss what you want Superman but sometimes you come across as telling people who disagree with you to let things go.  Maybe you don’t mean too but that’s the vibe you give off sometimes at least to me.  
 

As for Richard all he did was give his personal opinion about discussing Bradley since he’s coming back.  He didn’t quote anyone and didn’t tell you guys to stop.  

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

1. I dont feel like that play is an accurate represemtation of Bradleys scheme, properly executed.

 

That's probably fair, and I think I'd say the same about a few other plays throughout the year. But that starts to bother me when it's supposed to be the calling card of your scheme, and when you and your staff are supposed to be high level teachers. Busted coverage in Week 4 with a young secondary, I get it. Week 18, on the first play, seems like trouble.

 

To their credit, really no more long plays for the rest of the game. The Texans earned everything else they got, including Stroud making huge plays with pressure in his face, which is something good QBs do.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Weren’t you the same person a week ago telling me I was on the record and didn’t need to keep discussing something when I was discussing something I wanted to discuss?  

 

No, that's 100% not what I said to you, and this is 100% not what happened in this thread.

 

Quote

discuss what you want Superman

 

That's my plan.

 

Quote

but sometimes you come across as telling people who disagree with you to let things go.  Maybe you don’t mean too but that’s the vibe you give off sometimes at least to me.  

 

You should recalibrate your vibe machine. If I don't want to continue a discussion, I just stop engaging. I don't come back and tell everyone else that it's a waste of time to continue.

 

Quote

As for Richard all he did was give his personal opinion about discussing Bradley since he’s coming back.  He didn’t quote anyone and didn’t tell you guys to stop.  

 

The implication was obvious, and I stand by what I said.

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That's probably fair, and I think I'd say the same about a few other plays throughout the year. But that starts to bother me when it's supposed to be the calling card of your scheme, and when you and your staff are supposed to be high level teachers. Busted coverage in Week 4 with a young secondary, I get it. Week 18, on the first play, seems like trouble.

 

To their credit, really no more long plays for the rest of the game. The Texans earned everything else they got, including Stroud making huge plays with pressure in his face, which is something good QBs do.

Thats all Im really getting at Supe

 

I put that play squarely on Brents, who I like a lot, and I thought did really well under tough circumstances last year. I understand why he was beaten and think its correctable. I think he was flat out asleep on the first play of the game and he just got burned. 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No, that's 100% not what I said to you, and this is 100% not what happened in this thread.

 

 

That's my plan.

 

 

You should recalibrate your vibe machine. If I don't want to continue a discussion, I just stop engaging. I don't come back and tell everyone else that it's a waste of time to continue.

 

 

The implication was obvious, and I stand by what I said.

I am not going to have a drawn out back and forth with you but do you realize how arrogant it is to tell other how you should come across to others?  You, me, and no one else gets to tell others how they come across to others.  I told you how you came across to me, like I said I am willing to bet you don’t mean to come across that way but you do at least to me.  Sorry you don’t like it.  You tell people it’s okay not to have the last word yet you constantly seek to have it and you like to be little anyone you dares to see the world differently than you in the past week you’ve done it with me, 2006, and now goatface.  We all get it Superman you are smart, no one is going to argue that with you.  However, you aren't the only smart person here.  Smart people can see the same thing different ways without one of them not knowing what they are talking about.  I am trying to be better at accepting that.  I am from perfect I freely admit that but I think this place would be a lot better if we ALL remembered that.  

 

I am sure you won’t like that and that’s fine it’s just my opinion, and yes I am entitled to it.
 

Again as far as Richard goes I had the same thought as he did without reading your back and forth with goat face.  Then I saw your response and thought it was a little over the top.  If you disagree so be it.  
 

with that said have a nice night Superman.  I still think you are smart and respect your opinions even if I don’t agree with you all the time.  

[Dingus McGirt]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You don’t see any elite traits on Pittman?   
 

At least two:   Hands and routes. 
 

One more - tough”ness”

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Dingus McGirt said:

One more - tough”ness”

Yes….   I meant to add that, but got sidetracked.   Thanks for that good catch!

 

[Two_pound]

I have been on this forum for almost 20 years and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Lot's of great discussions with people who are passionate about Colt football like I am. I can tell lot's of you are as disgusted with our lack of defense for the past 52 years as I am. The number of times we have given up 3rd and longs is borderline pathetic. So the one thing that has me bewildered is how we never play defense and other teams over a long span of time can change their coaches and players and magically always play great defense? I'll use coach Dungy as an example. He won solely with defense in his years at Tampa, comes to Indy(with Peyton already here as his qb) and we struggle defensively just the same as always(except 2005 when we had a top 3 defense). I think a big difference in the Tampa defense to ours when Dungy was here(and even today) is Monte Kiffen ALWAYS mixed up the defenses, using blitzes and coverages(you'll remember Derrick Brooks blitzed a lot)) We just aren't aggressive enough, never have been. So some of you on here are right, until we change 52 years of nonsense defense we are not going to be successful. It is incredible how we make marginal, below average qb's and receivers look like hall of famers over and over again, it really is sickening. And before someone dumps on Ballard about bad drafting, why hasn't any gm for the past 52 years been able to assemble a strong defensive team????? We've played great defense maybe 6 years in the past 52. It's not a Ballard thing!

[masterlock]

22 hours ago, Goatface Killah said:

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.

He's 85th in yards-per-catch. (10.5)

[Goatface Killah]

51 minutes ago, masterlock said:

He's 85th in yards-per-catch. (10.5)

So? Thats completely irrelevant to my point.

[Chucklez]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:40 AM, 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.   

To the bolded (and to nod to South Park), the choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant * ain't really much of a choice.

 

My point is, we can do better than BOTH of them.

[Smonroe]

16 minutes ago, Chucklez said:

To the bolded (and to nod to South Park), the choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant * ain't really much of a choice.

 

My point is, we can do better than BOTH of them.

 

I agree.  I can understand the 'play conservative, let them screw up' strategy when playing bad and inexperienced QBs.  But any decent QB eats that D for lunch.

 

And I think it has as much to do with the skill of our CBs as it does coaching.

[Defjamz26]

I’m with Rick on this one. Bend don’t break is the motto, but if you bend anything enough it’ll break. Giving up and 3rd and 20 is a great demonstration of that.

 

It can’t always be the personnel. Any DC coordinator would be good with elite talent at Edge, corner, and LB by that token. In a pass happy league you can’t just sit in Cover-3 for 90% of the game. Almost every team has a receiver that excels at finding the soft spots in the zone and sitting down. So playing corners 8 yards off the receivers is just nonsense.

[SR711]

I don't think anything Venturi said is particularly off base.  He did back his points up with facts (the playing zone 79% of the time, the low blitz rate, the specific type of zone coverage being played, etc).

 

If the results on defense were even moderately successful, then I can understand sticking with the scheme and "doing what you do". However, facts are the defense was the 5th worst in the league in points per game (which is probably the most important stat) despite the team being essentially middle of the pack in terms of giveaways.   

 

The Houston game obviously stings, but I can give a somewhat of a pass understanding that Stroud is really good and, therefore, he was going to make some plays.  However, there was no excuse for giving up 29 points (over 10 points over their season average) on Christmas Eve to an Atlanta offense and Taylor Heinicke in a game where we had no turnovers on offense. The points given up that day where a direct result of repeatedly playing a passive, sit back type of defense without much blitzing.  

[hoosierhawk]

I like Rick and got to know him from the gym we both belonged. Good guy to talk to and knows football. I haven't listened to the to the podcast but from the early comments I read I have concluded,(1) Rick has a vendetta with Bradley of some kind and (2) I don't agree that he as a Colt color man on some Colt broadcasts should be so critical of any player or coach publicly to the extent he appears to be. 

Do I think we could do better at DC, yes but we could also do worse. Unfortunately our DBs are more cover 2 or zone guys which Bradley wanted for his D and most are not the best at man coverage in my uneducated opinion and we would have to adapt to man coverage till we replaced our current DBs. Seems that Steichen is pleased or Bradley would be gone.

[richard pallo]

30 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I like Rick and got to know him from the gym we both belonged. Good guy to talk to and knows football. I haven't listened to the to the podcast but from the early comments I read I have concluded,(1) Rick has a vendetta with Bradley of some kind and (2) I don't agree that he as a Colt color man on some Colt broadcasts should be so critical of any player or coach publicly to the extent he appears to be. 

Do I think we could do better at DC, yes but we could also do worse. Unfortunately our DBs are more cover 2 or zone guys which Bradley wanted for his D and most are not the best at man coverage in my uneducated opinion and we would have to adapt to man coverage till we replaced our current DBs. Seems that Steichen is pleased or Bradley would be gone.

I agree changing coaches doesn’t guarantee anything.  Jim Schwartz,  who many wanted to be our DC when Eberflus left just had his zone defense fall victim to Stroud yesterday as well.  He’s being criticized for not changing anything for Stroud.  His explanation was you play with what got you there and execute.  Both Gus and Jim are 57 and successful.  I agree if Steichen and Ballard are happy with him then you help him by improving the roster.  That’s Ballard’s job. I’m feeling confident that with a few additions to the starting eleven coupled with the experience gained from the young guys we will see an improved defense next year.  I think that’s a realistic expectation.

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I agree changing coaches doesn’t guarantee anything.  Jim Schwartz,  who many wanted to be our DC when Eberflus left just had his zone defense fall victim to Stroud yesterday as well.  He’s being criticized for not changing anything for Stroud.  His explanation was you play with what got you there and execute.  Both Gus and Jim are 57 and successful.  I agree if Steichen and Ballard are happy with him then you help him by improving the roster.  That’s Ballard’s job. I’m feeling confident that with a few additions to the starting eleven coupled with the experience gained from the young guys we will see an improved defense next year.  I think that’s a realistic expectation.

Apparently Martendale could be available.  Make the call. I have a lot of faith in Steichen but his retention of Bradley is a real head scratcher for me unless there are things going on behind the scenes we don't know about. Does continuity refer to the scheme rather than keeping the coach? I don't know but heading into next season with the same old coach, talent and scheme on defense is just going to lead to the same results. 8 years watching this defence tells me it is broken from the  coaching, talent, and scheme. It is time to make a change. Also not being talked about is this. Steichen reportedly is a very bright man. He had to see what is going on, he had to. In keeping Gus, if he does, is this his first shot stating he believes the problems with the D is more talent than coaching?  If he retains Gus, that's what it's telling me. I still have to believe there is more going on behind the scenes

On 1/12/2024 at 4:59 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Moose….   I’m long on record that while MOJ is our CURRENT WR1, I would like some better.   I want someone faster, more explosive and someone our opponents might even fear.  So eventually, we’d keep MPJ and he’d become our WR2.   By that I mean our second best WR.   Downs would be our WR3 and Pierce would be our WR4.   
 

I’ve always liked MPJ.  I’m glad we drafted him.  Hope he stays with us for many more years.   But I too want somebody better.  Fortunately, this draft class is said to be GREAT with receivers.  I’m confident Steichen will find one he loves. 

 

[CoachLite]

18 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I agree changing coaches doesn’t guarantee anything.  Jim Schwartz,  who many wanted to be our DC when Eberflus left just had his zone defense fall victim to Stroud yesterday as well.  He’s being criticized for not changing anything for Stroud.  His explanation was you play with what got you there and execute.  Both Gus and Jim are 57 and successful.  I agree if Steichen and Ballard are happy with him then you help him by improving the roster.  That’s Ballard’s job. I’m feeling confident that with a few additions to the starting eleven coupled with the experience gained from the young guys we will see an improved defense next year.  I think that’s a realistic expectation.

I hear that kind of thinking every year. I see what we have under Gus Bradley, and I don't like what I see. While we can always hope for more talent, we are underperforming with the talent we have. That drives me nuts!

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, CoachLite said:

I hear that kind of thinking every year. I see what we have under Gus Bradley, and I don't like what I see. While we can always hope for more talent, we are underperforming with the talent we have. That drives me nuts!

 

 Moore is the only sure thing in our defenses back 7.

 Our front four had no effective backup DT. And Ballard and Dodds think their old school scheme will work against todays rules. Brents may someday be a poor man's Richard Sherman (anyone enjoy watching Brents get destroyed), good luck matching him with our Cam Chancellor. They had one of the all - time great safeties behind them In Earl Thomas. Where we have nothing. 

 

 We got to watch some upper echelon passers do their thing this weekend.

They should have put Minshew in his place for you. 

 What fun it was to watch the football excellence shown by the Pack, Lions, and Texans. Like watching Roger's, Aikman, Brady at their best. 

[richard pallo]

20 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Apparently Martendale could be available.  Make the call. I have a lot of faith in Steichen but his retention of Bradley is a real head scratcher for me unless there are things going on behind the scenes we don't know about. Does continuity refer to the scheme rather than keeping the coach? I don't know but heading into next season with the same old coach, talent and scheme on defense is just going to lead to the same results. 8 years watching this defence tells me it is broken from the  coaching, talent, and scheme. It is time to make a change. Also not being talked about is this. Steichen reportedly is a very bright man. He had to see what is going on, he had to. In keeping Gus, if he does, is this his first shot stating he believes the problems with the D is more talent than coaching?  If he retains Gus, that's what it's telling me. I still have to believe there is more going on behind the scenes

 

I do believe Shane thinks the problem with the defense is talent not the coaching.  In fact Ballard said the same thing by saying we need more explosion on both sides of the ball.  Ballard also said it was his decision to play young rookies in the secondary.  So I think Shane has no problem with the scheme.  Wink is available now as you said.  He is 60 and three years older than Gus.  I dare say he’s set in his ways too.  But his old team does have an explosive difference maker who is on the list to be a FA.  That’s FS Xavier McKinney.  I would love to get that guy.

[Goatface Killah]

21 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Apparently Martendale could be available.  Make the call. I have a lot of faith in Steichen but his retention of Bradley is a real head scratcher for me unless there are things going on behind the scenes we don't know about. Does continuity refer to the scheme rather than keeping the coach? I don't know but heading into next season with the same old coach, talent and scheme on defense is just going to lead to the same results. 8 years watching this defence tells me it is broken from the  coaching, talent, and scheme. It is time to make a change. Also not being talked about is this. Steichen reportedly is a very bright man. He had to see what is going on, he had to. In keeping Gus, if he does, is this his first shot stating he believes the problems with the D is more talent than coaching?  If he retains Gus, that's what it's telling me. I still have to believe there is more going on behind the scenes

 

The Giants defense gave up more yards than the Colts this year.

[Superman]

On 1/12/2024 at 5:57 PM, GoColts8818 said:

I am not going to have a drawn out back and forth with you but do you realize how arrogant it is to tell other how you should come across to others?  You, me, and no one else gets to tell others how they come across to others.  I told you how you came across to me, like I said I am willing to bet you don’t mean to come across that way but you do at least to me.  Sorry you don’t like it.

 

You can put this however you want, but what happened above is you accused me of doing something that I do not do, and I defended myself. If that's arrogant to you, I don't know what to tell you. But when you make an accusation like this, don't expect me to just back away.

 

Speaking of which...

 

Quote

You tell people it’s okay not to have the last word yet you constantly seek to have it

 

This is 100% false. As I said earlier, I do not try to shut down discussions that I'm done engaging in, I simply move on. 

 

Quote

and you like to be little anyone you dares to see the world differently than you in the past week you’ve done it with me, 2006, and now goatface.

 

I also take strong issue with this. Apparently your feelings are bruised over our discussion on the 4th down call, which is interesting because you pursued that discussion with me, not the other way around. You should maybe revisit that thread and take a look at how aggressive you were with everyone who saw that differently than you did, and then come back and tell me who was belittling whom. 

 

And in this very thread, I do not think that my exchange with goatface in particular was belittling at all. We were having a solid discussion, IMO. If @Goatface Killah feels differently, I hope he sets me straight. I don't know what exchange with @2006Coltsbestever you're talking about, but same goes for him.
 

Quote

 

We all get it Superman you are smart, no one is going to argue that with you.  However, you aren't the only smart person here.  Smart people can see the same thing different ways without one of them not knowing what they are talking about.  I am trying to be better at accepting that.  I am from perfect I freely admit that but I think this place would be a lot better if we ALL remembered that.  

 

 

Yeah, there are a ton of smart people here, and I respect people's opinions. It's still a discussion forum, where disagreements are worked out. Which is what goatface and I have been doing.

 

Quote

I am sure you won’t like that and that’s fine it’s just my opinion, and yes I am entitled to it.

I don't have a problem with anyone having a particular opinion, including a negative opinion of me as a poster. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, and I'm fine with that. 

 

Quote

Again as far as Richard goes I had the same thought as he did without reading your back and forth with goat face.  Then I saw your response and thought it was a little over the top.  If you disagree so be it.  

 

And decided to chastise me, LOL. What response did you expect? That chastising also included an accusation that was not true.

 

Goatface and I were having a solid back and forth, we expressed our viewpoints and I believe we came to a better understanding of each other's positions. And then a third party comes in and tells us that our discussion is a waste of time... I don't see the the point in pretending that he was doing anything else, simply because he didn't quote anyone.

 

I thought richard's comment was unnecessary, and I said so. If you disagree, so be it.  

 

Quote

with that said have a nice night Superman.  I still think you are smart and respect your opinions even if I don’t agree with you all the time.  

 

Thanks. I don't know why this discussion had to be so sharp. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't think they're smart or respect their opinion, and that includes you, and the other people that you've mentioned earlier.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

I do believe Shane thinks the problem with the defense is talent not the coaching.  In fact Ballard said the same thing by saying we need more explosion on both sides of the ball.  Ballard also said it was his decision to play young rookies in the secondary.  So I think Shane has no problem with the scheme.  Wink is available now as you said.  He is 60 and three years older than Gus.  I dare say he’s set in his ways too.  But his old team does have an explosive difference maker who is on the list to be a FA.  That’s FS Xavier McKinney.  I would love to get that guy.

 

I'm going to take some solace in the fact that Steichen and Ballard defended Bradley so quickly, and Ballard in particular pointed to other facts, like the roster and the youth. Steichen apparently believes that there are ways to improve the defense that don't require changing the DC, so maybe they intend to upgrade the defensive roster, or adjust some of the gameplans and play calling. 

 

I still don't think Bradley will break significantly from his super conservative approach, so I feel like there's a cap on how much we can improve defensively with him running things. But there can sill be some improvement.