Colts vs Packers post game thread

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You said CAREER because that's what you meant.  If you meant per season, then my response would have been different. 

 

Some might think my response was probably wrong because it is not supported by pointless facts....they don't even know the difference between being right and wrong, but think right comes from a "fact size competition".  

 

 I wish people would stop using such a pointless stat like YPC to Monday-morning QB the play calling when down two scores in the 4th Q and two TDs late in the 4Q.  That is the issue.  The stats you describe to second guess play calling are completely worthless.  

 

If the question is about why JT didn't have more carries late in the game, the answer is simple: the offense only had 20 minutes of possession, the team was down two scores, and we only called two run plays to RBs in the 4th quarter. That's fine.

 

But the question isn't just why didn't JT have more carries. The question is why he didn't play at all in the 4th quarter. I'd argue that those two RB carries in the 4th quarter should have gone to JT, because he's the team's best RB. I'd argue that his threat as a playmaker makes him valuable on the field even if he's not getting the ball. In fact, the team talked about the idea of having Richardson and JT threatening teams in the run game, and when we had a high leverage situation to do just that, they had JT on the sideline.

 

And I'd also argue that Trey Sermon and Tyler Goodson aren't good enough in any area of the game -- catching, blocking, whatever -- that it makes sense for them to completely replace JT when the game is on the line, given that he's a far superior ball carrier to either of them. 

 

It's not a fact size competition. The problem is that you've basically made up a narrative, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. 

 

All that said, JT is probably the team's best offensive weapon -- setting aside the QB -- and he should be on the field in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. Bottom line. And even if Steichen and JBC come right out and say that he was benched because he dropped two passes or missed a blocking assignment, I'll still believe that the best RB should be on the field with the game on the line. But at least that would be an honest answer, and not the nonsense coachspeak they've been offering so far. 

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If the question is about why JT didn't have more carries late in the game, the answer is simple: the offense only had 20 minutes of possession, the team was down two scores, and we only called two run plays to RBs in the 4th quarter. That's fine.

 

But the question isn't just why didn't JT have more carries. The question is why he didn't play at all in the 4th quarter. I'd argue that those two RB carries in the 4th quarter should have gone to JT, because he's the team's best RB. I'd argue that his threat as a playmaker makes him valuable on the field even if he's not getting the ball. In fact, the team talked about the idea of having Richardson and JT threatening teams in the run game, and when we had a high leverage situation to do just that, they had JT on the sideline.

 

And I'd also argue that Trey Sermon and Tyler Goodson aren't good enough in any area of the game -- catching, blocking, whatever -- that it makes sense for them to completely replace JT when the game is on the line, given that he's a far superior ball carrier to either of them. 

 

It's not a fact size competition. The problem is that you've basically made up a narrative, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. 

 

All that said, JT is probably the team's best offensive weapon -- setting aside the QB -- and he should be on the field in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. Bottom line. And even if Steichen and JBC come right out and say that he was benched because he dropped two passes or missed a blocking assignment, I'll still believe that the best RB should be on the field with the game on the line. But at least that would be an honest answer, and not the nonsense coachspeak they've been offering so far. 

Yes, but lets get some generalizations out of the way.  Somewhere on this board, I laid out the 4Q play calls. 

 

JT was on the first drive of the 4Q, and contributed a lot.  This was the drive that ended with that stupid option play to Sermon   If you want to ask why was Sermon in there and not JT....maybe rotation?  Maybe JT was winded after the 29 yard run and the ensuing 1 yard stuff?  IDK, but we can all agree that the play call there was dumb and the fact that it went to Sermon and not JT...on an outside run.... is really not the issue.  Then Gay missed a makeable 50 yard FG.

 

GB drained 3.5 minutes of clock and scored a FG

 

AR throws a first down 30 yard pass, then another pass on first down, incomplete, then the pick across the middle on 2nd and 10.  3 passes.  1 great, one pick.  Are we going to be concerned where JT is on this series?

 

GB drains 6 minutes off the 4Q clock and scores a FG.

 

So the generalizations of "JT not being on the field in the 4Q" is really about him not being on the field with about 4 minutes left down by 13 points, or 2 TDs.  So if we are going to criticize Shane, lets at least understand the game situation first.

 

So why do Colts coaches take JT off of the field in obvious passing situations (last regime kinda did the same thing)?  IDK.  I don't think its because they want to give the backup some PT rotation, despite what he said.  It seems more like there is something they don't like about JT in those situations, but don't really want to say it publicly.

 

I'm with you, and everybody.  I'd just as soon have JT on the field than our bad backups, but I'm not going to pretend that that  coaching decision cost us a significant chance at winning the game.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

AR throws a first down 30 yard pass, then another pass on first down, incomplete, then the pick across the middle on 2nd and 10.  3 passes.  1 great, one pick.  Are we going to be concerned where JT is on this series?

 

To answer your question, yes. If he's the team's most dangerous offensive weapon -- and I believe he is, outside of the QB -- then he should be on the field when we're in a must-score situation. Even if we're not calling run plays.

 

Quote

 

It seems more like there is something they don't like about JT in those situations, but don't really want to say it publicly.

 

 

If that's true, then that means they're intentionally selling nonsense, which is why people are calling them on it.

 

And even if there's something about JT they don't like in those situations, let's be clear that neither Sermon nor Goodson are excelling in any way in any aspect of the game. It's not like either of them are great receivers, or great blockers. If you have an RB2 who actually has some value in those areas, and that means JT gets less run in obvious passing situations, then I get it. That's not true of either of the guys who were in the game in the 4th quarter.

 

Quote

I'm with you, and everybody.  I'd just as soon have JT on the field than our bad backups, but I'm not going to pretend that that  coaching decision cost us a significant chance at winning the game.

 

I think the combination of personnel and play call probably cost us on the big third down, which cost us yardage, and ultimately led to a missed FG that we probably shouldn't have been trying in the first place. 

 

But the reason you're getting pushback is because you're arguing that JT is too flawed to be on the field in passing situations, which isn't true. And you're also arguing that his ability as a ball carrier is overblown, which is also not true, and is especially odd coming off a game in which he was our only reliable source of yardage. 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

You said CAREER because that's what you meant.  If you meant per season, then my response would have been different. 

 

Some might think my response was probably wrong because it is not supported by pointless facts....they don't even know the difference between being right and wrong, but think right comes from a "fact size competition".  

 

Here is the crux of anything to do with JT...ever.

 

• How many RBs can bust off 60 yard TDs:   about 1.
• How many RBs can churn out 4 YPC on a drive:   About 42, And another 80 in college.

 

So having Sermon in the game when you are not relying upon winning the game by a 60 yard run...like a HC would have to be a complete dope to rely on that to win the game.....late in 4Q.... means basically nothing. 

 

 I wish people would stop using such a pointless stat like YPC to Monday-morning QB the play calling.

 

I only suggested that JT could have broken off a few good runs if he were in the game when GB was playing pass. It didn't have to be a 60 year run. 2 or 3  15-20 yard runs would have sufficed nicely . What I strongly objected to was the call on 3rd and one. Taking Taylor out and running that play to the sideline was insane. Run the ball with JT  , twice if needed .

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand this argument, or this attempt to delegitimize Jonathan Taylor's production. He's a borderline great RB who needs to have more than 12 carries/game, particularly when he's averaging nearly 9 yards/carry. 

 

I guess I need to "remove" all his big runs and redo his YRC ? Yeah... I agree that he's a heck of a good back. Let's not forget he played one year with a chronic bad ankle and another with a noodle armed QB.

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

To answer your question, yes. If he's the team's most dangerous offensive weapon -- and I believe he is, outside of the QB -- then he should be on the field when we're in a must-score situation. Even if we're not calling run plays.

Agreed, but its not a big deal.  JT may have been on the field.  We don't know because the series of play calls tended to make the RB irrelevant, and Ars first pass was a success with whomever was playing RB.

 

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

If that's true, then that means they're intentionally selling nonsense, which is why people are calling them on it.

 

And even if there's something about JT they don't like in those situations, let's be clear that neither Sermon nor Goodson are excelling in any way in any aspect of the game. It's not like either of them are great receivers, or great blockers. If you have an RB2 who actually has some value in those areas, and that means JT gets less run in obvious passing situations, then I get it. That's not true of either of the guys who were in the game in the 4th quarter.

I think the call out of Shane for what he said is assuming he was being honest about it being just a rotational thing.  A dumb way to approach the game, not really for telling us nonsense.  But there could be many people not liking what he said for either reason.

 

IMO, our backups are worse now than they were under Frank, and I thought they were bad then.  We had Moss, but that didn't last long.

 

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think the combination of personnel and play call probably cost us on the big third down, which cost us yardage, and ultimately led to a missed FG that we probably shouldn't have been trying in the first place. 

 

But the reason you're getting pushback is because you're arguing that JT is too flawed to be on the field in passing situations, which isn't true. And you're also arguing that his ability as a ball carrier is overblown, which is also not true, and is especially odd coming off a game in which he was our only reliable source of yardage. 

The option play was a drive killer for sure.  But, the way it was run it wouldn't have mattered if it was JT.

 

Disagreeing with the criticism of Shane doesn't mean I want JT off the field in passing situations.  I'm just looking at the history of the club and that seems to be the case.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

How many runs has JT broke for long TD. Steichen should know this.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

13 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I only suggested that JT could have broken off a few good runs if he were in the game when GB was playing pass. It didn't have to be a 60 year run. 2 or 3  15-20 yard runs would have sufficed nicely . What I strongly objected to was the call on 3rd and one. Taking Taylor out and running that play to the sideline was insane. Run the ball with JT  , twice if needed .

That’s what holder said. He goes just run it with jt anc if he doesn’t get it run it again.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed, but its not a big deal.  JT may have been on the field.  We don't know because the series of play calls tended to make the RB irrelevant, and Ars first pass was a success with whomever was playing RB.

 

I don't think the play calls made the RB irrelevant. Offenses change plays at the line all the time, and personnel influences the defense. Taking JT out neutralizes any potential for an advantage.

 

Also, you mentioned him possibly being winded earlier... He played 29 snaps, and had 12 carries. Either he was hurt, or he was benched. He wasn't winded for the entire 4th quarter.

 

Quote

 

I think the call out of Shane for what he said is assuming he was being honest about it being just a rotational thing.  A dumb way to approach the game, not really for telling us nonsense.  But there could be many people not liking what he said for either reason.

 

IMO, our backups are worse now than they were under Frank, and I thought they were bad then.  We had Moss, but that didn't last long.

 

 

I wouldn't expect Shane to be upfront about potentially benching JT, or about him maybe having an injury that sidelined him. But I would expect him to do better than 'we wanted to rotate the backups in.' Ultimately, my problem isn't with what he said, it's more with what he did. 

 

We at least had Hines, who theoretically had a specific role as a change back, even though I don't think Frank made good use of him. Moss was a true backup, every down guy, and he played well. And even if we still had him, I wouldn't agree with benching JT for the entire 4th quarter.

 

26 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Disagreeing with the criticism of Shane doesn't make me want JT off the field in passing situations.  I'm just looking at the history of the club and that seems to be the case.

 

Shane is being criticized for taking JT off the field in passing situations. I don't see where there's room to disagree with the criticism. 

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I only suggested that JT could have broken off a few good runs if he were in the game when GB was playing pass. It didn't have to be a 60 year run. 2 or 3  15-20 yard runs would have sufficed nicely . What I strongly objected to was the call on 3rd and one. Taking Taylor out and running that play to the sideline was insane. Run the ball with JT  , twice if needed .

I get it and agree with leaving JT on the field.  

 

Maybe this is a criticism of Shane, but it doesn't feel like it to me:  But modern coaches, IMO, who have analytics, algorithms, etc, big in their process tend to see things like you would see things through an Excel spreadsheet.  This guy does this, that guy does that.  And when we have success doing this in this situation, it increases the percentage success rate that I can compare to alternatives next game.  They worship the analytics probabilities.

 

In that sense, I think when coaches are wanting...needing....20 yard chunk plays they don't think about the guy who excels at running the ball.  Its low probability of success relative to a pass play, and pass plays have a greater probability of success when passing guys are on the field and not running guys.  That's really how these guys think, IMO.  

[krunk]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:50 AM, Defjamz26 said:

Gotta be because they just fell off a cliff. I know sometimes Father Time just catches guys off guard, but for Buckner and Grover to be getting blown off the ball like they have is wild. Last year the Run D took a major step back when Stewart wasn’t on the field for his suspension. Now he’s on the field and it’s the worst it’s been. Even when him and Buckner are out there. There has to be some deeper explanation.

The media asked Gus today what is going on with the linebackers. The part that plays into what I said is where Gus said it's a shared responsibility. He said "I believe we've(the coaches)been doing some things that have not allowed them to play fast" 

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

He played 29 snaps, and had 12 carries. Either he was hurt, or he was benched. He wasn't winded for the entire 4th quarter.

I meant the option play, it was to Sermon, who just replaced JT for that play, after JT's 29 yard run and 1 yard stuff to start the 4Q, then the missed FG.   I wasn't saying that JT possibly being winded from the game played a role in his absence late, I meant just for that one play.

 

It was a trick play.  Shane probably outsmarted himself by putting in Sermon and running him thinking GB would be thinking something not to the RB...or a pass.

[dw49]

Just now, DougDew said:

I meant the option play, it was to Sermon, who just replaced JT for that play, after JT's 29 yard run and 1 yard stuff to start the 4Q, then the missed FG.   I wasn't saying that JT possibly being winded from the game played a role in his absence late, I meant just for that one play.

 

It was a trick play.  Shane probably outsmarted himself by putting in Sermon and running him thinking GB would be thinking something not to the RB...or a pass.

 

It reminds me of when Frank R put Hines in the game in big run situations . I think he may have figured opponents would never figure that tiny RB would be called on to get tough yards. How many times did we see Hines get stuffed running up the gut ? IMO, much the same  as you point out with the Sermon run.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I meant the option play, it was to Sermon, who just replaced JT for that play, after JT's 29 yard run and 1 yard stuff to start the 4Q, then the missed FG.   I wasn't saying that JT possibly being winded from the game played a role in his absence late, I meant just for that one play.

 

It was a trick play.  Shane probably outsmarted himself by putting in Sermon and running him thinking GB would be thinking something not to the RB...or a pass.

 

I think they just didn't execute well (that's a different aspect of coaching, I don't think the team looked prepared in this game). I don't think the play is flawed, I wouldn't characterize it as a trick play... But I think when your lead back has been producing, and you have 3rd and 1, it's probably best to keep it simple.

 

But even suggesting that JT was subbed out for that one play because he was winded, I don't think it holds up. It's one of the lowest usage games of his career, and he's one of the best conditioned players on the team. I can't think of a team when JT even looked like he needed a breather, even in those games with Reich where he was getting 30 carries. 

 

I think he was pulled situationally, and I think it was a mistake. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Steichen reason for going to a passing game seems even more crazy when Taylor had 500 receiving yards in 21. He is not a bad pass catcher. Steichen needs to get off the sermon and Goodson train who haven’t done anything.

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think they just didn't execute well (that's a different aspect of coaching, I don't think the team looked prepared in this game). I don't think the play is flawed, I wouldn't characterize it as a trick play... But I think when your lead back has been producing, and you have 3rd and 1, it's probably best to keep it simple.

 

But even suggesting that JT was subbed out for that one play because he was winded, I don't think it holds up. It's one of the lowest usage games of his career, and he's one of the best conditioned players on the team. I can't think of a team when JT even looked like he needed a breather, even in those games with Reich where he was getting 30 carries. 

 

I think he was pulled situationally, and I think it was a mistake. 

I agree about the coaching error on that one play.  I can't recall ever seeing an option play in the NFL being run successfully.  I'd just as soon see JT up the gut there myself.

 

But, we were only down 10-3 then with about 12.5 minutes left and still makeable FG range.  Not worse than taking a sack on a pass play.

 

Then GB takes off about 9 minutes of clock with two FG drives, with ARs pick in between.  I just don't see where the Sermon vs JT argument has much impact on the game.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree about the coaching error on that one play.  I can't recall ever seeing an option play in the NFL being run successfully.  I'd just as soon see JT up the gut there myself.

 

But, we were only down 10-3 then with about 12.5 minutes left and still makeable FG range.  Not worse than taking a sack on a pass play.

 

Then GB takes off about 9 minutes of clock with two FG drives, with ARs pick in between.  I just don't see where the Sermon vs JT argument has much impact on the game.

 

Option plays work often, but they're risky. If it doesn't work, you're definitely losing yardage, unlike a run that gets stuffed, but you still got back to the LOS. 

 

I don't think the argument is that benching JT lost them the game. (I do think the option play severely undermined their prospects, though.) The argument is that JT should have been on the field, and when Steichen was asked why he wasn't, his answer was lacking.

[stitches]

Benching JT did NOT lose us this game. In fact, we moved the ball relatively well in the 4th. This is a red herring... 

 

Offensively, in this game the big problem was AR's erratic throws AND the inability of the WRs to make a play for their QB and dropping like... 6-7 balls in this game. 

[Defjamz26]

The stuff with JT goes back to last season too. 4th and 1 against the Texans and you have BJ Goodson out there. I think if you’re going to fail, you fail with your best players. Like this past game. I would rather not convert a 4th and 2 with JT than on an option play to Trey Sermon.  Why pay him close to $10.2 million this season if you don’t trust him to get 2 yards?

[compuls1v3]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:32 PM, DougDew said:

I get it, but its a problem isn't it.  If your best player on offense is a RB, its a problem.  If you average 9 YPC and score 3 points, the good RB performance kinda doesn't really do much.  As you get closer to the goal line, the entire field becomes "the box" so its pretty hard to keep punching it in with the run in he red zone.

 

Look, if JT busts off a long run and scores, great.  But he really hasn't done that since when...2021?   I don't think Shane is content with crossing his fingers and hoping that happens again, like fans do, as the end of the game is approaching.

No matter how you slice it,  JT will NEVER break off that long run if he's NOT in the game.   I didn't like it.