Jump to content
mike23md

Week 2: Indianapolis Colts

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

And btw, Breeland still isn't on a roster.

Yeah, not looking good for that guy. meanwhile except for a few completions to TY, our young DBs have looked good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colts rookie linebacker 

Darius Leonard is leading the NFL with 27 tackles, and he’s getting recognition for that.

Leonard, who had a whopping 18 tackles in Sunday’s win over Washington, has been named the AFC defensive player of the week.

The 23-year-old Leonard played at South Carolina State, where he was an all-conference player at a lower level of college football, and was a second-round draft pick this year.

He was one of the players who destroyed our running game along with the Colts playing both DTs in the A gaps to stop AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I guess the only thing they could’ve done was try some outside zone runs, a sweep or a pitch. This explains Gruden’s thinking ok why he tried to pitch it to CT on 3rd & 1 but I still would’ve liked to see a sneak.

Huh ... it's like the interior of the offensive line is weak or something. I wonder why that is ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Taking what the defense gives you and hoping that one of your 3 best playmakers can break some tackles and make a great play could win you a game

When the defense is giving you the middle of the field short, it's because they're fine giving up a small chunk of yardage to keep the clock running.

Also, isn't Smith supposed to be one of the Redskins' best playmakers? Why is all of the burden dropped on the receivers?

3 hours ago, turtle28 said:

could make the defenders creep up further to stop that play and then you can hit a medium to deep shot.  

If you haven't threatened them once the entire drive with a deep shot, why would they creep up? If you keep throwing to the middle of the field taking what they are giving you, why worry about going over the top? Remember, they wanted the offense to take the small nibbles, so they had no incentive to creep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RSkinGM said:

"Safe, certain defeat ". How can defend that statement when if Reed didn't fumble, we have the ball on their 21 yard line , down by 12 points  with 5 minutes left in the game and 4 times out ! I know you've ( and I ) have seen dozens of games won and lost in much more precarious straights than this game .  

Because as I said in response to you earlier, given how the offense they were running, they would have scored a minute later(*), the Colts would have forced to them to burn their timeouts (like they did).

So instead of being down 12 points with a bit less than 4 minutes remaining and zero timeouts, they would have been down 4-6 points down (depending on two point conversion)with a bit less than 3 minutes and zero timeouts.

At that point ... do they run the exact same offense that they did? Because that drive ended up with zero points as well.

 

 

(*) This of course assumes the Colts would have continued to play a Cover 2 shell, something that they would almost assuredly not done once the ball was within 15 yards of the endzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RSkinGM said:

I have respect for both you and WOZ but you've both pitching B S. I'd say we have maybe a 30 % chance to win the game until Reed fumbled. Then it went to maybe 3 % !

AND-- How is not entirely accurate ? Fact-5 minutes left. FACT -4 times out. Fact -our ball on their 21 yard line . The point you guys keep ignoring . TIME wasn't a factor !

And the point you keep ignoring is that they didn't get close to scoring on the second of the two drives.

I'm not arguing that Reed fumbling was when you could close the book on the game. It was. However, even if he doesn't fumble (say he extended his knee down four more inches before the ball is punched), they did not have enough time to score a second time. They made no effort to score on the second drive to have a chance at the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Woz said:

And the point you keep ignoring is that they didn't get close to scoring on the second of the two drives.

I'm not arguing that Reed fumbling was when you could close the book on the game. It was. However, even if he doesn't fumble (say he extended his knee down four more inches before the ball is punched), they did not have enough time to score a second time. They made no effort to score on the second drive to have a chance at the game.

HUH? Let's say -just for arguments sake- they score on the next play from the 21. That leaves about 4 and half  mins and 4 clock stops. If the defense then stops the Colts we should get the ball back with over two minutes  and at least one clock stop, maybe two ! Seems to be enough time to score.

I agree they made no effort to score on the last drive and I don't give a flying rhubarb . It was over ! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RSkinGM said:

HUH? Let's say -just for arguments sake- they score on the next play from the 21. That leaves about 4 and half  mins and 4 clock stops. If the defense then stops the Colts we should get the ball back with over two minutes  and at least one clock stop, maybe two ! Seems to be enough time to score.

I agree they made no effort to score on the last drive and I don't give a flying rhubarb . It was over ! 

  1. Had the Redskins scored on the next play, that would have been their longest play of the drive. They were content to attack the middle of the field in short increments. In all likelihood, it would have taken them two or three plays at the minimum to get there, if for no other reason than the Colts would have stopped playing a soft Cover 2 shell that deep in their territory.
  2. The ensuing drive the Colts almost exclusively ran it up the middle (one exception was when they threw a screen pass up the middle). The Redskins had to burn all three of their timeouts. As a result, one minute of the clock went off the clock. Assuming the Colts would have done the exact thing (why would they do anything differently), the Redskins would have gotten the ball back at about the 3:30 mark with zero timeouts.
  3. The last drive matter because they still had four minutes remaining (albeit without any timeouts), but didn't try to push the ball down the field. They were content to take little bites and stay in bounds for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

 

It’s almos like Colts defense didn’t give the Redskins many opportunities to connect downfield because of the zone coverage they were running and the WRs struggled to get open, and when they did there wasnt good spacing which is problematic for a passing game.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turtle28 said:

 

 

Simple solution would have been a fullback, but what do I know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bigdog44 said:

Simple solution would have been a fullback, but what do I know 

YES, and running some outsize zone to get away from those DTs jumping the A gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

YES, and running some outsize zone to get away from those DTs jumping the A gaps.

Both simple adjustments that clown can’t make

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×