Bills game might not be a gimme

[Emphasis]

(09-14-2015, 10:52 AM)djs7685 Wrote: It looks that way after week 1.

There are a LOT of overreactions after week 1 every single year, this year will be no exception. I have no problem with people making predictions and whatnot, but I'll stay in the crowd that gives it more than 60 minutes of football against 1 single team to determine how underrated and overrated everybody is.

Eifert looks as good as advertised, but I'm still not 100% sold until I see him do it more than just once. A lot of teams/players looked really good/really bad early last year that ended up being the exact opposite by the end of the season.

Maybe the Colts are really good and the Bills are just even better at being really good, how crazy would that be? Buffalo Bills - St. Louis Rams Super Bowl.

I love seeing "new" teams in the Super Bowl. Of course this means I want the Bengals on the forefront

[RoyleRedlegs]

RE: The Colts

Andre looked like a shell of Andre. No explosion. No burst. No suddeness.
Gore is on hard pitch count. He's at the RB wall.

Their weapons might have been great once, but until they do it in Colts uni's they are old and past prime.

Maybe it was just the situation, away game...Rex's first game...their first game in Indy...but it didn't look good

[Okeana]

Ive been saying for awhile now that this is a game we will likely lose coming up. The Bills and the Rams are two teams that are stacked with talent, but have horrible reputations. I think both teams can turn in winning seasons this year and we will likely see the fall of some of the better teams like indy. I think it was a bad idea for them to go older instead of younger and they will pay the price. You have two guys that were in the same system their entire careers and having to make a change in their twilight. Ask Chad Johnson how well that goes.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-14-2015, 09:50 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I think Hilton was injured yesterday, and you might be being generous with "middle of the pack", even though that might be where they ranked statistically.  When you have those juggernaut offenses like Houston, Jacksonville, and the Titans on your schedule two times each, it might skew your numbers a bit.

Hilton has a "bruised knee" and word is that he may miss a week, nothing more. They're just fine in the weapons department. Aside from Hilton, they have a pair of good TE's, Andre Johnson, and a first round pick in Phillip Dorsett.

As for the defense, you have an opinion, I have statistics. I'll take the facts over an opinion any day. The Texans had the 17th ranked offense last year, so it's not like they were scrubs. We get to play the Browns (ranked 23rd in '14) twice every year. Should that be held against our D?

Btw, I was shorting the Colts by saying they were "middle of the pack". They actually finished 11th in total defense last year. I don't care if you don't think their defense is great, but they definitely weren't scrubs, which is what people are implying.

(09-14-2015, 10:52 AM)djs7685 Wrote: It looks that way after week 1.

There are a LOT of overreactions after week 1 every single year, this year will be no exception. I have no problem with people making predictions and whatnot, but I'll stay in the crowd that gives it more than 60 minutes of football against 1 single team to determine how underrated and overrated everybody is.

Eifert looks as good as advertised, but I'm still not 100% sold until I see him do it more than just once. A lot of teams/players looked really good/really bad early last year that ended up being the exact opposite by the end of the season.

Maybe the Colts are really good and the Bills are just even better at being really good, how crazy would that be? Buffalo Bills - St. Louis Rams Super Bowl.

Maybe the Bills are just that good? I mean, we are talking about a team that finished 9-7 last year, had the 4th ranked defense and they were playing in Buffalo. On top of that, the Colts aren't exactly the best road team.

[Stormborn]

(09-14-2015, 02:37 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That narrative is so tired. TY Hilton, Andre Johson and Phillip Dorsett make up one of the best WR groups in the NFL. Gore is a good back. They have good TE's. They didn't allow many sacks last year. The defense was middle of the pack.

That's not where you build though. They've been lackluster in the trenches for a better half of a decade now.

Once you build from the inside, you work your way outside and add those skill positions. 

[Shake n Blake]

(09-14-2015, 03:23 PM)Stormborn Wrote: That's not where you build though. They've been lackluster in the trenches for a better half of a decade now.

Once you build from the inside, you work your way outside and add those skill positions. 

Look, the Colts allowed fewer sacks per pass play than the Bengals. Their defense ranked 11th and had 40 sacks last year, with 23.5 coming from their d-line.

People think that because they can't name players on their o-line and defense, that they must suck. They don't, period.

The facts back me up. They played well in almost every facet last year. The o-line was good. The defense played great. The run game was weak, but they added Gore.

[Stormborn]

(09-14-2015, 11:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Look, the Colts allowed fewer sacks per pass play than the Bengals. Their defense ranked 11th and had 40 sacks last year, with 23.5 coming from their d-line.

People think that because they can't name players on their o-line and defense, that they must suck. They don't, period.

The facts back me up. They played well in almost every facet last year. The o-line was good. The defense played great. The run game was weak, but they added Gore.

That line gave up sooooo many pressures and hits last year, Luck did his best to get the ball out when he could, make no mistake, the line was worse, way worse, than what a sack to pass ratio could say.

64 times Luck dropped back to pass but didn't throw, some of them could be attributed to good coverage but most of them had to do with terrible protection.

Pass rush was good but run defense was still an issue, mainly with the interior, bottom half of the league in ypc and yards per game allowed an no Dlineman with a positive run defense PFF grade (except Josh Chapman who was a rotational guy).

As for newly acquired weapons, it remains to be seen if the two former Hurricanes have anything left but a shell of their former selves. Not judging them by one game against a good defense, but it's possible age really slows them down this year.  

[Shake n Blake]

(09-14-2015, 11:54 PM)Stormborn Wrote: That line gave up sooooo many pressures and hits last year, Luck did his best to get the ball out when he could, make no mistake, the line was worse, way worse, than what a sack to pass ratio could say.

64 times Luck dropped back to pass but didn't throw, some of them could be attributed to good coverage but most of them had to do with terrible protection.

Pass rush was good but run defense was still an issue, mainly with the interior, bottom half of the league in ypc and yards per game allowed an no Dlineman with a positive run defense PFF grade (except Josh Chapman who was a rotational guy).

As for newly acquired weapons, it remains to be seen if the two former Hurricanes have anything left but a shell of their former selves. Not judging them by one game against a good defense, but it's possible age really slows them down this year.  

If you say so. I'd be curious to see their % of pressures per pass play. They passed a ton last year, so you have to account for that. I think you're exaggerating the pressures, but until I see numbers, I can't say for sure either way. I do know that terrible lines don't usually give up a mere 29 sacks on 661 pass attempts. 

Also, you seem to be giving 100% credit to Luck for getting rid of the ball and avoiding sacks amidst constant pressure, yet Matt Hasselbeck was sacked only twice in 44 attempts last year. That's the exact same average of sacks per pass attempt as Luck. Explain that one away.

You honestly have no clue why Luck dropped back to throw but didn't. You're only giving your opinion. I'm sure there were plenty of times where he saw open field and took off. I'm sure plenty of times receivers were covered. Tbh, 64 times doesn't seem like a lot for a guy who finished 3rd in passing attempts and is known to take off and run quite a bit.

I agree that the newly acquired weapons may not work out, but they weren't exactly shells of themselves last season, so there's no reason to assume that they won't help. We'll see soon enough. Summing this all up, I don't see how anyone can look at these facts and say that Luck has nothing but garbage around him:

- O-line gave up only 29 sacks, less sacks per pass play than the Bengals, who have a great o-line
- TY Hilton, Andre Johnson, Moncrief and Dorsett at WR
- One of the best TE duos in the league in Fleener and Dwayne Allen
- Defense that ranked 11th in total yards with 40 sacks

Look. You don't have to think the Colts have an amazing team around Luck. That's not what I'm saying. But anyone who looks at all this and says the Colts are a garbage team outside of Luck is just being ignorant and stubborn.

[Stormborn]

(09-15-2015, 01:31 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If you say so. I'd be curious to see their % of pressures per pass play. They passed a ton last year, so you have to account for that. I think you're exaggerating the pressures, but until I see numbers, I can't say for sure either way. I do know that terrible lines don't usually give up a mere 29 sacks on 661 pass attempts. 

Also, you seem to be giving 100% credit to Luck for getting rid of the ball and avoiding sacks amidst constant pressure, yet Matt Hasselbeck was sacked only twice in 44 attempts last year. That's the exact same average of sacks per pass attempt as Luck. Explain that one away.

You honestly have no clue why Luck dropped back to throw but didn't. You're only giving your opinion. I'm sure there were plenty of times where he saw open field and took off. I'm sure plenty of times receivers were covered. Tbh, 64 times doesn't seem like a lot for a guy who finished 3rd in passing attempts and is known to take off and run quite a bit.

I agree that the newly acquired weapons may not work out, but they weren't exactly shells of themselves last season, so there's no reason to assume that they won't help. We'll see soon enough. Summing this all up, I don't see how anyone can look at these facts and say that Luck has nothing but garbage around him:

- O-line gave up only 29 sacks, less sacks per pass play than the Bengals, who have a great o-line
- TY Hilton, Andre Johnson, Moncrief and Dorsett at WR
- One of the best TE duos in the league in Fleener and Dwayne Allen
- Defense that ranked 11th in total yards with 40 sacks

Look. You don't have to think the Colts have an amazing team around Luck. That's not what I'm saying. But anyone who looks at all this and says the Colts are a garbage team outside of Luck is just being ignorant and stubborn.

It's not garbage, soft is the word I'd use. Soft up front, specifically. 

In 680 drop backs, the Colts gave up 221 total pressures (ratio of .325 per drop back) compared the Bengals giving up 107 total pressures on 521 drop backs (ratio of 20.5 per drop back). I just don't see these Olines being comparable in pass pro. With that much allowed pressure I'd say it's a safe bet Luck did most of what he could to get rid of the ball.

Another soft quality, getting gashed in run defense. Bills put up 150 on them on 36 carries, after a less than stellar year at it last year, look no further than the two New England games. Gashed.

So no, it's got talent in its skill players and on the edge, but the team in its core is soft in the trenches and is vulnerable to games like they had against Buffalo.