Richardson 2 minute drive and after

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

IMO if he plays like this the next 5 games, we are likely to go winless in those. I just don't want to seem like I'm giving him credit for things that IMO have other much more important factors playing into the outcome of the games. I think in the long term he needs to play much better if he wants to keep around .500 record, let alone if we want to climb into the contenders tier.

 

I wasn't giving him any credit. Just saying that the team can compete while he plays. Of course he needs to play better.

[twfish]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What do you think about the gameplan yesterday? I'm trying to figure out why we can't get anything easy in the passing game. 

I have a feeling you and I are looking at it with the same perspective. Honestly it seems like SS dials up better passing games with guys like Flacco or Minshew then he does Richardson. It seems he pushes a lot more intermediate to long passes with Richardson where as with others he game plans more quick hitters and short passes with the occasional deep ball. It makes it where it's a lot more boom or bust and is killing his completion percentage IMHO. I would like to see him run the same passing scheme he would with Flacco to get Richardson's confidence up. It makes me want to study the all 22 of Richardson vs Flacco to see what kind of pass game is dialed up because off the initial eye test it's like watching a different OC. I didn't feel like Richardson was air mailing balls, it just seemed to be incredibly contested.

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

We went to the Bruce Arians 2012 playbook yesterday.

But isn't that what AR supposedly does best...when he throws?

 

Should Shane try to win each game or try to give AR the kind of NFL development he didn't get in college?

[twfish]

Just now, DougDew said:

But isn't that what AR supposedly does best...when he throws?

 

Should Shane trying to win each game or try to give AR the kind of NFL development he didn't get in college?

I'm in this boat right now. I can swallow losing if we see progression and flashes. Losing without seeing that kills me.

[stitches]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I wasn't giving him any credit. Just saying that the team can compete while he plays. Of course he needs to play better.

That's my point - I don't think the team can compete while he play(if he plays like this). I think this sample is way too small and skewed by really low level of competition in a few of those games.

 

And just for the record, I don't mind not competing right now. I think development and evaluation of Richardson are the primary goals of this team right now and I don't care if we are losing, as long as we are getting answers and we are seeing progress.

[Flash7]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's so low percentage, even though it's Richardson's strength, that it doesn't make sense to lean on as a way to open up the game. And I'm not saying everything should be short and quick to start, but give him something in the first two drives. And if not for him, then for the sake of the offense in general, and for the team overall to avoid the lopsided time of possession we saw early in the season. 

I get it. It's totally unconventional.

 

But if you take away AR's deep passes to Pierce and Pittman in the last several games, you are left with something truly awful. The only reason why we think AR had good games this year is because he was able to connect on those deep throws. Otherwise, his play, his stats (from a measurement perspective and not vanity metrics) and his ability to make short and intermediate connections have been incredibly bad.

 

I don't blame Steichen for seeing this and planning around AR's limitations. If neither the short passes or the long passes  are a high value proposition, then of course you opt for the longer passes. They're both low probabilities but the longer passes can potentially give you a better result.

 

Anyways, that's just how I see it and this only applies because of AR. If it was another QB, I would have a different take.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, twfish said:

I have a feeling you and I are looking at it with the same perspective. Honestly it seems like SS dials up better passing games with guys like Flacco or Minshew then he does Richardson. It seems he pushes a lot more intermediate to long passes with Richardson where as with others he game plans more quick hitters and short passes with the occasional deep ball. It makes it where it's a lot more boom or bust and is killing his completion percentage IMHO. I would like to see him run the same passing scheme he would with Flacco to get Richardson's confidence up. It makes me want to study the all 22 of Richardson vs Flacco to see what kind of pass game is dialed up because off the initial eye test it's like watching a different OC. I didn't feel like Richardson was air mailing balls, it just seemed to be incredibly contested.

 

I agree with a lot of this. In some cases, like the Packers game, Richardson was all over the place. Then against the Steelers, he was much sharper. I don't necessarily think this is a continuous problem with the play calling, but it stood out to me yesterday, especially when you have two three-and-outs and the QB is 0/4 with everything contested down the field. He was a little off on the throw to AD, but other than that, we were asking him to do the stuff at Andrew Luck was doing in 2012, and even Luck was well below 60% as a rookie.

 

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But isn't that what AR supposedly does best...when he throws?

 

Should Shane trying to win each game or try to give AR the kind of NFL development he didn't get in college?

 

This seems to suggest that Richardson can't effectively complete a screen pass or a shallow cross. Just because he has a strength doesn't mean he's completely deficient in every other area. 

 

Completing a screen pass in the first two drives both helps the team win, and helps Richardson get better.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's my point - I don't think the team can compete while he play(if he plays like this). I think this sample is way too small and skewed by really low level of competition in a few of those games.

 

And just for the record, I don't mind not competing right now. I think development and evaluation of Richardson are the primary goals of this team right now and I don't care if we are losing, as long as we are getting answers and we are seeing progress.

 

The Steelers were supposed to have an answer for Richardson -- best defense in the league at the time, great pass rush, good secondary. He was sharp, productive, and explosive against them. 

 

The sample size is small. I don't think we even have enough to make a meaningful extrapolation at this point. We agree that he needs to be better than he was yesterday to have a good shot at winning games against better teams. I think the play calling needs to help him.

 

Also, competing =/= winning. 

 

My point in bringing up the 5-4 record was simply a counter to the idea that the Colts have no shot at winning any games as long as Richardson's development is the priority. 

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with a lot of this. In some cases, like the Packers game, Richardson was all over the place. Then against the Steelers, he was much sharper. I don't necessarily think this is a continuous problem with the play calling, but it stood out to me yesterday, especially when you have two three-and-outs and the QB is 0/4 with everything contested down the field. He was a little off on the throw to AD, but other than that, we were asking him to do the stuff at Andrew Luck was doing in 2012, and even Luck was well below 60% as a rookie.

 

 

This seems to suggest that Richardson can't effectively complete a screen pass or a shallow cross. Just because he has a strength doesn't mean he's completely deficient in every other area. 

 

Completing a screen pass in the first two drives both helps the team win, and helps Richardson get better.

Key word is completing, not just throwing a screen pass.  There might be a concern he sails those passes like he does every time he throws 10 yards to his left.  Worse results than hitting the kicker on the sidelines.

 

In ARs very first game last year, he moved to his right and threw to his right, and had a good completion percentage and rating, but didn't score a whole lot.  Since then it seems Shane is forcing him to be an NFL QB right now, because he probably feels like winning a game is his first priority. 

 

Maybe that's the way how Irsay and Ballard want to judge AR, see if he can handle the normal NFL throws. 

 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

I get it. It's totally unconventional.

 

But if you take away AR's deep passes to Pierce and Pittman in the last several games, you are left with something truly awful. The only reason why we think AR had good games this year is because he was able to connect on those deep throws. Otherwise, his play, his stats (from a measurement perspective and not vanity metrics) and his ability to make short and intermediate connections have been incredibly bad.

 

I don't blame Steichen for seeing this and planning around AR's limitations. If neither the short passes or the long passes  are a high value proposition, then of course you opt for the longer passes. They're both low probabilities but the longer passes can potentially give you a better result.

 

Anyways, that's just how I see it and this only applies because of AR. If it was another QB, I would have a different take.

 

I disagree with the idea that short passing -- especially schemed up concepts -- is low probability for Richardson. This is part of what I perceive as an overreaction to some of his issues. Yes, he has issues with accuracy. No, he's not incapable of hitting short passes. 

 

Just go back a few games and watch the RPO throws, which he hit with no problem. Those weren't in the early gameplan yesterday. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Key word is completing, not just throwing a screen pass.  There might be a concern he sails those passes like he does every time he throws 10 yards to his left.  Worse results than hitting the kicker on the sidelines.

 

In ARs very first game last year, he moved to his right and threw to his right, and had a good completion percentage and rating, but didn't score a whole lot.  Since then it seems Shane is forcing him to be an NFL QB right now, because he probably feels like winning a game is his first priority. 

 

Maybe that's the way how Irsay and Ballard want to judge AR, see if he can handle the normal NFL throws he will need to make. 

 

Can we please stop pretending that Anthony Richardson can't complete a simple screen pass? 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Can we please stop pretending that Anthony Richardson can't complete a simple screen pass? 

Sure, if we can stop pretending that Shane's playcalling or gameplanning are significant contributors to why we lose games. 

 

Since Shane has gotten here, losses have been due to either QB play or the D.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Sure, if we can stop pretending that Shane's poor playcalling or gameplanning is significant contributor to why we lose games. 

 

Since Shane has gotten here, losses have been due to either QB play or the D.

 

This is a strawman.

 

Richardson can complete short passes. They need to scheme up more of them early in the game. And like I said earlier, if Richardson doesn't complete them, that's his failure. But if we don't call them to begin with, that's a playcalling failure.

[DougDew]

Just now, Superman said:

 

This is a strawman.

 

Richardson can complete short passes. They need to scheme up more of them early in the game. And like I said earlier, if Richardson doesn't complete them, that's his failure. But if we don't call them to begin with, that's a playcalling failure.

That's fine, but the entire NFL offensive strategy rests in the short passing game.  If Shane doesn't use it for one game, I assume he had a good reason other than he forgot or was too busy managing something else as HC. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's fine, but the entire NFL offensive strategy rests in the short passing game.  If Shane doesn't use it for one game, I assume he had a good reason other than he forgot or was too busy managing something else as HC. 

 

Whatever the reason, the result was unsatisfactory. So just saying 'Shane knows what he's doing' isn't a real analysis. I guess it's better than 'Richardson must be sailing screen passes in practice.'

[compuls1v3]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

These blown protections are on everyone, though, not just the OL. Someone else said that Flacco would have been a sitting duck with all that blitzing, and I like to think that Flacco would have recognized more of these presnap, and checked into something to mitigate the blitz. 

 

But this is another reason Richardson needs to play. The experience he gains from having played such a blitz happy defense is invaluable. 

AND WE STILL WON.  We played a GOOD D and still won.  It was an excellent learning op for AR.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Whatever the reason, the result was unsatisfactory. So just saying 'Shane knows what he's doing' isn't a real analysis. I guess it's better than 'Richardson must be sailing screen passes in practice.'

The result was unsatisfactory because the plays that were called failed too often.  I just assume that Shane knows the value of a short passing game and had a reason for not calling them.  Personal speculation, I think he wants to win the game that's right in front of him and chooses the plays he thinks the players can execute well.

 

Another example, he does in fact call outside runs.  But they are sweeps to the WR, and only with Dulin or Downs.  The RBs, AP, or Pitt do not run them.  I think player traits and skills influence the play calling, and the gameplanning, but I can't say why he would not have called shorter passes this game like he did when Flacco was playing.   

 

  

 

 

[jbaron04]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is a valid point, but I'm not talking about the outcome. I'm wondering why, if you have a young QB who struggles with consistency, and you're playing a team with a good secondary, you're not countering that with scheme.

 

I think Steichen almost never says anything genuine or insightful in his pressers. When he does his 'that's on me, I have to do better,' thing, I roll my eyes. Like against the Bears, Richardson gets picked off in the end zone, and Steichen falls on his sword... stop lying to me, that was a good play call, it wasn't executed well, and that's okay. 

 

But in yesterday's presser, it's one of the few times that I think Steichen was being transparent and honest when he said that no one was open, he didn't do a good job, etc. And when you watch how they adjusted in the second half, it all adds up.

Yah as a coach sometimes you call guys out in public ,but when you have a young QB with the weight of the world on him you try to take that and deflect some of the blame. The bears call at the goal line it didn’t give him any options when he rolled out to left defender was infront of him so he couldn’t run and tried to float the ball to back of end zone but the ball got tipped which lead to pick. That a play where Richardson has to just throw it away and take the 3 , but that comes with experience you can’t win a game on one play but you sure can lose one lol. But you are right but the issue is the traditional run game wasn’t really getting yard on early downs forcing us to have to pass

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The result was unsatisfactory because the plays that were called failed too often.  I just assume that Shane knows the value of a short passing game and had a reason for not calling them.  Personal speculation, I think he wants to win the game that's right in front of him and chooses the plays he thinks the players can execute well.

 

Another example, he does in fact call outside runs.  But they are sweeps to the WR, and only with Dulin or Downs.  The RBs, AP, or Pitt do not run them.  I think player traits and skills influence the play calling, and the gameplanning, but I can't say why he would not have called shorter passes this game like he did when Flacco was playing.   

 

  

 

 

Goodson has run outside, Mitchell has run outside.  Are you actually watching the games?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think Steichen truly believed that this was on him yesterday. He kept repeating it over and over. He did nothing to help the WR get open. AR didn’t really have a bunch of missed throws but the timing seemed like it was a little late. Plus some of those could of been PI easily.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The result was unsatisfactory because the plays that were called failed too often.  I just assume that Shane knows the value of a short passing game and had a reason for not calling them.  Personal speculation, I think he wants to win the game that's right in front of him and chooses the plays he thinks the players can execute well.

 

Another example, he does in fact call outside runs.  But they are sweeps to the WR, and only with Dulin or Downs.  The RBs, AP, or Pitt do not run them.  I think player traits and skills influence the play calling, and the gameplanning, but I can't say why he would not have called shorter passes this game like he did when Flacco was playing.   

 

No true scotsman... 'If Steichen did it, he must have had a good reason and it must have been the right decision. Therefore, it must be the QB's fault that it didn't work.' This is flawed logic.

 

I think they tried to pick up where Richardson left off in the Steelers game. And that's fine, but also give the offense a chance to get going by scheming up some easy completions.

 

Developing Richardson and trying to win games are not necessarily competing priorities. Anything that's good for the offense in general is good for Richardson's development. It keeps him on the field and gets him more reps. Even the third possession when it was almost entirely run plays, some of those were RPOs, some of that exploited the passing defense, etc. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Goodson has run outside, Mitchell has run outside.  Are you actually watching the games?

Yes.  Goodson is the scat back, and I thought of AD after I posted.  But others are not called upon to run outside.  That is not a failure of Shane to call outside plays, or to know what they are.  It is a function of certain players not running them as well as others....because certain players in the NFL don't do things as well as others.   Its not because the play caller forgot to call the plays when that player was on the field.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Yah as a coach sometimes you call guys out in public ,but when you have a young QB with the weight of the world on him you try to take that and deflect some of the blame. The bears call at the goal line it didn’t give him any options when he rolled out to left defender was infront of him so he couldn’t run and tried to float the ball to back of end zone but the ball got tipped which lead to pick. That a play where Richardson has to just throw it away and take the 3 , but that comes with experience you can’t win a game on one play but you sure can lose one lol. But you are right but the issue is the traditional run game wasn’t really getting yard on early downs forcing us to have to pass

 

I get why he does it. He's committed to the bit, I don't enjoy it, but I can't fault it either. 

 

But my point is that I actually think he meant it yesterday.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

No true scotsman... If Steichen did it, he must have had a good reason and it must have been the right decision. Therefore, it must be the QB's fault that it didn't work. This is flawed logic.

 

I think they tried to pick up where Richardson left off in the Steelers game. And that's fine, but also give the offense a chance to get going by scheming up some easy completions.

 

Developing Richardson and trying to win games are not necessarily competing priorities. Anything that's good for the offense in general is good for Richardson's development. It keeps him on the field and gets him more reps. Even the third possession when it was almost entirely run plays, some of those were RPOs, some of that exploited the passing defense, etc. 

Its not flawed logic to blame the QB when he starts the game 0/5 or 2/11.  He doesn't even have to throw the ball at all if he sees the receivers are covered.  I think its a bit flawed to put the blame on a guy sitting on the sidelines.

[Superman]

Just now, DougDew said:

Its not flawed logic to blame the QB when he starts the game 0/5 or 2/11.  He doesn't even have to throw the ball at all if he sees the receivers are covered.  I think its a bit flawed to put the blame on a guy sitting on the sidelines.

 

If the QB drops back 11 times, and no one is open on those 11 plays, what should the QB do? Scramble every time? Good luck with that. Throw it away? He's 0/11. 

 

I'm not blaming every incompletion on Steichen. But yes, some of the blame for the slow start in the passing game rests with Steichen. 

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  Goodson is the scat back, and I thought of AD after I posted.  But others are not called upon to run outside.  That is not a failure of Shane to call outside plays, or to know what they are.  It is a function of certain players not running them as well as others....because certain players in the NFL don't do things as well as others.   Its not because the play caller forgot to call the plays when that player was on the field.

 

I think this more than anything. JT has not looked to take runs outside more often than not when his play is blocked, been my bone to pick with him for years. Scat backs, smaller backs like Goodson, it is more in their interests to initiate contact with DBs over LBs and DL in the middle, so they naturally are inclined to take it outside, IMO.

 

Having said that, sometimes watching another back do something different with the same blocking lights a fire under you. That is what happened to Sermon after he realized Goodson being a tad more patient and then going between guard and tackle or outside tackle and then when Sermon came back after his initial ineffectiveness, he ran with Goodson like results.

[JMichael557]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

I get it. It's totally unconventional.

 

But if you take away AR's deep passes to Pierce and Pittman in the last several games, you are left with something truly awful. The only reason why we think AR had good games this year is because he was able to connect on those deep throws. Otherwise, his play, his stats (from a measurement perspective and not vanity metrics) and his ability to make short and intermediate connections have been incredibly bad.

 

I don't blame Steichen for seeing this and planning around AR's limitations. If neither the short passes or the long passes  are a high value proposition, then of course you opt for the longer passes. They're both low probabilities but the longer passes can potentially give you a better result.

 

Anyways, that's just how I see it and this only applies because of AR. If it was another QB, I would have a different take.

How is that different then Flacco? Against Jacksonville, Flacco was terrible until he hit some deep throws to AP late in the game. The Short passing game was going nowhere. May not be Flacco or AR's fault.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Nate Atkins made a good point on his podcast. He said I don’t think there was anything yesterday where Flacco would of helped.AR was at least a cheat code when the passing game isn’t working.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If the QB drops back 11 times, and no one is open on those 11 plays, what should the QB do? Scramble every time? Good luck with that. Throw it away? He's 0/11. 

 

I'm not blaming every incompletion on Steichen. But yes, some of the blame for the slow start in the passing game rests with Steichen. 

OK, here's what I don't get about fans and their complaints.   Its as if the playcaller should be calling more plays that are obviously easier to complete.  If so, I say that if there are plays where the WR will be open, then please call those plays all of the time and stop calling the plays where there is a greater chance the WR won't be open. 

 

So Shane called pass plays he thought would be more difficult to execute for the WRs and AR than other pass plays.  Why would he do that?  (At the start of a game, or in a close game at all?)

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OK, here's what I don't get about fans and their complaints.   Its as if the playcaller should be calling more plays that are obviously easier to complete.  If so, I say that if there are plays where the WR will be open, then please call those plays all of the time and stop calling the plays where there is a greater chance the WR won't be open. 

 

So Shane called pass plays he thought would be more difficult to execute for the WRs and AR than other pass plays.  Why would he do that?  (At the start of a game, or in a close game at all?)

 

Do you really think my opinion of the play calling yesterday is as binary as 'the plays didn't work, therefore they were bad play calls'? 

 

Do you think my point is that we should completely eliminate pass plays that have a higher degree of difficulty, and only call simple, short throws?

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you really think my opinion of the play calling yesterday is as binary as 'the plays didn't work, therefore they were bad play calls'? 

 

Do you think my point is that we should completely eliminate pass plays that have a higher degree of difficulty, and only call simple, short throws?

I don't know how folks think of play calling, but I do know the complaints flow when the called plays fail and not when the plays work.  

 

Not in a 2 minute situation, a shoot out, or a blow out, I assume Shane called the plays he called because he thought they were more likely to be executed than the plays he did not call.  Why would he start a game with plays he felt were more difficult to execute? 

[jvan1973]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  Goodson is the scat back, and I thought of AD after I posted.  But others are not called upon to run outside.  That is not a failure of Shane to call outside plays, or to know what they are.  It is a function of certain players not running them as well as others....because certain players in the NFL don't do things as well as others.   Its not because the play caller forgot to call the plays when that player was on the field.

Taylor can run outside.    They rarely call those plays though.    Here is one

 

https://youtu.be/gyQyx3Nrnl0?si=KS-0jZkhT0a043P_

[Hawkeyecolt]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is a valid point, but I'm not talking about the outcome. I'm wondering why, if you have a young QB who struggles with consistency, and you're playing a team with a good secondary, you're not countering that with scheme.

 

I think Steichen almost never says anything genuine or insightful in his pressers. When he does his 'that's on me, I have to do better,' thing, I roll my eyes. Like against the Bears, Richardson gets picked off in the end zone, and Steichen falls on his sword... stop lying to me, that was a good play call, it wasn't executed well, and that's okay. 

 

But in yesterday's presser, it's one of the few times that I think Steichen was being transparent and honest when he said that no one was open, he didn't do a good job, etc. And when you watch how they adjusted in the second half, it all adds up.

That’s just it. There weren’t a bunch of guys open yesterday. Did AR miss a couple of throws?  Yes, but for the most part guys weren’t open. Miami put Ramsey on Downs to take that away. AR didn’t force throws into coverage. I think he was a tad late on the one throw to Pittman but that could have been a DPI. 
 

Even in the GB game where his receivers did him no favors, AR kept fighting until the end.  I think the determination and fortitude that he shows will pay off. 

[ShuteAt168]

8 hours ago, Patrick Miller said:

Hey a win is a win but someday the excuses are going to run out for AR. “He’s a rookie”….” He doesn’t have JT”…..”Steichen isn’t using him right” If Flacco was in there we would have won by two scores or more against that woeful dolphins team.  I hope something clicks for AR and he gets better…I really do but man….some of those throws were so bad. He looks like a rb trying to play qb.

Yeah, the guy is completing 48.5 percent of his passes. It’s tough to explain that stat away. 

[ShuteAt168]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not counting QB wins, I feel the same way. In fact, Flacco's best game was against the Jags, and we lost because we couldn't get a defensive stop.

 

I'm just saying the team is able to compete even with Richardson's ups and downs, so it's not like his development process is sabotaging the team.

I don’t know, I think a 48.5 completion percentage against the good teams coming up will probably be pretty detrimental. 

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I don’t know, I think a 48.5 completion percentage against the good teams coming up will probably be pretty detrimental. 

Not if he rushes for a bunch of yards and a td

[ShuteAt168]

7 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Not if he rushes for a bunch of yards and a td

That’s not sustainable as a way to win in the NFL. 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

That’s not sustainable as a way to win in the NFL. 

The Ravens disagree

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

29 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

That’s not sustainable as a way to win in the NFL. 

But it’s ok to use it until his passing game gets better.

[Superman]

54 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I don’t know, I think a 48.5 completion percentage against the good teams coming up will probably be pretty detrimental. 

 

Yeah, heaven forbid we call a screen play or something that might help the passing game get going. Instead, our young QB that we're trying to develop into a pro level player has the deepest intended target rate in the NFL.

 

Hold on to that 48.5% stat, though. It's a real conversation killer.