Colts gameplan and coaching not really that bad

[Guest fredtoast]

This is what I hear most of you saying.

1. "We shouldn't have ran the ball so much because that took us out of our usual gameplan. It doesn't matter that that is how other teams beat Indy."



2. "We should have blitzed and played man coverage because that is how other teams beat Indy. It doesn't matter that that takes us out of our usual cover 2 zone gameplan."



So it is both stupid to stay with our usual gameplan and stupid not to change our usual gameplan. This is the kind of logic that anyone can come up with using HINDSIGHT. None of you have one tenth of the football knowledge of our coaching staff, yet AFTER THE GAME IS PLAYED you all act like they don't know anything. So here is my take on it.



I know that the teams that give Manning trouble generally blitz a lot, but if it was as easy as that to beat Indy then they would have lost more than 4 home games in the last four years, and Manning wouldn't be averaging over 4,000 yds for the last nine seasons. The fact is that the teams that give Indy trouble are the teams THAT HAVE THE TALENT to blitz and play man to man coverage. Our starting CBs were Tory James and a rookie. If we had left them in man-to-man we would have lost 63-16. The idea was to make Manning play perfectly in order to beat us. They knew that he would probably move up and down the field if we gave him the short stuff, but the idea was that when the field was shortened to 15-20 yards and the defense was compressed then we could cover all the gaps. Also the short passing game takes more time off the clock and therefore reduces the total number of possessions for the Colts. Manning made the TDs to Harrison look easy, but in fact they were very tough throws into tiny open windows. Also the TD to Wayne was a perfect pass. Tory looked bad in coverage, but there would have been no way to defend that pass without climbing up Wayne's back. We gambled that Manning would lose patience or make a mistake, but he didn't. The fact is that we held Manning to far fewer yards (282) playing on his home field than the Jags (313) or Titans (351) were able to when he was on the road. We held his receivers to only 9.7 yards per catch and the longest was only 22 yards. The reason that the Jags and Titans were able to beat the Colts wasn't their ability to stop Manning, it was the fact that they outrushed the Colts by a combined [b]594-134[/b]. Which brings me to our offensive gameplan.



The plan was to run the ball just like the other teams had done against Indy's pathetic rush defense. I believe that that was a good plan because we should actually have the talent to run the ball (unlike playing man coverage on defense). However we lost Willie and were stuck with playing two back up tackles. Combine this with Carson having a bad night, and our offense looked really bad. Carson was under a lot of pressure, but he was missing on passes even when he wasn't being hit. He underthrew Chad on the big play early in the game. He underthrew Henry on the deep sideline route. The ball that was just barely tipped in the second half was thrown behind Chad, and Carson says that he missed TJ on a play that would have been a TD.;



So basically the gameplans looked bad because our players didn't execute well enough. Our back up tackles hurt us on offense, and we missed a few tackles on defense. I can't say that I never critcize our coaches, but I am realistsic about it. It is absolutely absurd the way some guys on here think they know more about football than Bratkowski who has one of the best resumes of any OC in the game, and Bresnehan who has...... well, okay, I worry sometimes about Bres as our DC, but I'm not going to accuse him of not even watching film. Given the incredible number of players lost to injury and suspensions I am impressed that the Bengals are still in the top half of the league in scoring defense. I'm definitely willing to give him another year.

[EnglishBengal]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='412114' date='Dec 21 2006, 01:03 PM']This is what I hear most of you saying.

1. "We shouldn't have ran the ball so much because that took us out of our usual gameplan. It doesn't matter that that is how other teams beat Indy."



2. "We should have blitzed and played man coverage because that is how other teams beat Indy. It doesn't matter that that takes us out of our usual cover 2 zone gameplan."



So it is both stupid to stay with our usual gameplan and stupid not to change our usual gameplan. This is the kind of logic that anyone can come up with using HINDSIGHT. None of you have one tenth of the football knowledge of our coaching staff, yet AFTER THE GAME IS PLAYED you all act like they don't know anything. So here is my take on it.



I know that the teams that give Manning trouble generally blitz a lot, but if it was as easy as that to beat Indy then they would have lost more than 4 home games in the last four years, and Manning wouldn't be averaging over 4,000 yds for the last nine seasons. The fact is that the teams that give Indy trouble are the teams THAT HAVE THE TALENT to blitz and play man to man coverage. Our starting CBs were Tory James and a rookie. If we had left them in man-to-man we would have lost 63-16. The idea was to make Manning play perfectly in order to beat us. They knew that he would probably move up and down the field if we gave him the short stuff, but the idea was that when the field was shortened to 15-20 yards and the defense was compressed then we could cover all the gaps. Also the short passing game takes more time off the clock and therefore reduces the total number of possessions for the Colts. Manning made the TDs to Harrison look easy, but in fact they were very tough throws into tiny open windows. Also the TD to Wayne was a perfect pass. Tory looked bad in coverage, but there would have been no way to defend that pass without climbing up Wayne's back. We gambled that Manning would lose patience or make a mistake, but he didn't. The fact is that we held Manning to far fewer yards (282) playing on his home field than the Jags (313) or Titans (351) were able to when he was on the road. We held his receivers to only 9.7 yards per catch and the longest was only 22 yards. The reason that the Jags and Titans were able to beat the Colts wasn't their ability to stop Manning, it was the fact that they outrushed the Colts by a combined [b]594-134[/b]. Which brings me to our offensive gameplan.



The plan was to run the ball just like the other teams had done against Indy's pathetic rush defense. I believe that that was a good plan because we should actually have the talent to run the ball (unlike playing man coverage on defense). However we lost Willie and were stuck with playing two back up tackles. Combine this with Carson having a bad night, and our offense looked really bad. Carson was under a lot of pressure, but he was missing on passes even when he wasn't being hit. He underthrew Chad on the big play early in the game. He underthrew Henry on the deep sideline route. The ball that was just barely tipped in the second half was thrown behind Chad, and Carson says that he missed TJ on a play that would have been a TD.;



So basically the gameplans looked bad because our players didn't execute well enough. Our back up tackles hurt us on offense, and we missed a few tackles on defense. I can't say that I never critcize our coaches, but I am realistsic about it. It is absolutely absurd the way some guys on here think they know more about football than Bratkowski who has one of the best resumes of any OC in the game, and Bresnehan who has...... well, okay, I worry sometimes about Bres as our DC, but I'm not going to accuse him of not even watching film. Given the incredible number of players lost to injury and suspensions I am impressed that the Bengals are still in the top half of the league in scoring defense. I'm definitely willing to give him another year.[/quote]

Good post!

The defensive gameplan was a the right one I think, and I also agree that our corners would have been serously exposed man-to-man in a blitzing scheme, especially Tory James. However, the problem was with the D-line not getting any pass rush, and the linebackers not covering the underneath - they were dropping back too deep to where the safeties were already covering. They should have tracked the runningbacks/TE coming out of the backfield. This part was either due to poor coaching or poor execution.

On the offensive side of the ball, you make a good point about Willie Anderson being injured for the last 3 quarters. But even more significantly was that nobody was asked to help Whitworth against Freeney who was consistently getting pressure and forcing Palmer to throw quicker than he wanted. That was a major screw up by the coaches. Carson says this is why the Bengals stuck with the run more throughout the game - because of Freeney.

[cwing]

[quote name='EnglishBengal' post='412127' date='Dec 21 2006, 01:17 PM']Good post!

The defensive gameplan was a the right one I think, and I also agree that our corners would have been serously exposed man-to-man in a blitzing scheme, especially Tory James. However, the problem was with the D-line not getting any pass rush, and the linebackers not covering the underneath - they were dropping back too deep to where the safeties were already covering. They should have tracked the runningbacks/TE coming out of the backfield. This part was either due to poor coaching or poor execution.

On the offensive side of the ball, you make a good point about Willie Anderson being injured for the last 3 quarters. But even more significantly was that nobody was asked to help Whitworth against Freeney who was consistently getting pressure and forcing Palmer to throw quicker than he wanted. That was a major screw up by the coaches. Carson says this is why the Bengals stuck with the run more throughout the game - because of Freeney.[/quote]

Not according to Lapham. I do not recall it happening but Lap said on Bengals line that the offense began lining up a TE on Whitworth's side. He also said they gave Whit help with RB's. He also said Steinbach was just as much at fault as the two tackles. He said this is what he saw on tape.

Lap also said there were no issues with the defensive game plan. It did not work due to poor execution/missed tackles. Basically poor LBer play.

[cwing]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='412114' date='Dec 21 2006, 01:03 PM']This is what I hear most of you saying.

1. "We shouldn't have ran the ball so much because that took us out of our usual gameplan. It doesn't matter that that is how other teams beat Indy."



2. "We should have blitzed and played man coverage because that is how other teams beat Indy. It doesn't matter that that takes us out of our usual cover 2 zone gameplan."



So it is both stupid to stay with our usual gameplan and stupid not to change our usual gameplan. This is the kind of logic that anyone can come up with using HINDSIGHT. None of you have one tenth of the football knowledge of our coaching staff, yet AFTER THE GAME IS PLAYED you all act like they don't know anything. So here is my take on it.


I know that the teams that give Manning trouble generally blitz a lot, but if it was as easy as that to beat Indy then they would have lost more than 4 home games in the last four years, and Manning wouldn't be averaging over 4,000 yds for the last nine seasons. The fact is that the teams that give Indy trouble are the teams THAT HAVE THE TALENT to blitz and play man to man coverage. Our starting CBs were Tory James and a rookie. If we had left them in man-to-man we would have lost 63-16. The idea was to make Manning play perfectly in order to beat us. They knew that he would probably move up and down the field if we gave him the short stuff, but the idea was that when the field was shortened to 15-20 yards and the defense was compressed then we could cover all the gaps. Also the short passing game takes more time off the clock and therefore reduces the total number of possessions for the Colts. Manning made the TDs to Harrison look easy, but in fact they were very tough throws into tiny open windows. Also the TD to Wayne was a perfect pass. Tory looked bad in coverage, but there would have been no way to defend that pass without climbing up Wayne's back. We gambled that Manning would lose patience or make a mistake, but he didn't. The fact is that we held Manning to far fewer yards (282) playing on his home field than the Jags (313) or Titans (351) were able to when he was on the road. We held his receivers to only 9.7 yards per catch and the longest was only 22 yards. The reason that the Jags and Titans were able to beat the Colts wasn't their ability to stop Manning, it was the fact that they outrushed the Colts by a combined [b]594-134[/b]. Which brings me to our offensive gameplan.



The plan was to run the ball just like the other teams had done against Indy's pathetic rush defense. I believe that that was a good plan because we should actually have the talent to run the ball (unlike playing man coverage on defense). However we lost Willie and were stuck with playing two back up tackles. Combine this with Carson having a bad night, and our offense looked really bad. Carson was under a lot of pressure, but he was missing on passes even when he wasn't being hit. He underthrew Chad on the big play early in the game. He underthrew Henry on the deep sideline route. The ball that was just barely tipped in the second half was thrown behind Chad, and Carson says that he missed TJ on a play that would have been a TD.;



So basically the gameplans looked bad because our players didn't execute well enough. Our back up tackles hurt us on offense, and we missed a few tackles on defense. I can't say that I never critcize our coaches, but I am realistsic about it. It is absolutely absurd the way some guys on here think they know more about football than Bratkowski who has one of the best resumes of any OC in the game, and Bresnehan who has...... well, okay, I worry sometimes about Bres as our DC, but I'm not going to accuse him of not even watching film. Given the incredible number of players lost to injury and suspensions I am impressed that the Bengals are still in the top half of the league in scoring defense. I'm definitely willing to give him another year.[/quote]



Very easy to 2nd guess as we the FAN always know the answers because it is just a game and very easy !!!

Not !!!

[VonBlade]

Might as well slide this in here :

[quote]Bill Simmons, ESPN Page2
BRONCOS (-3) over Bengals
Someone In The Know once told me, "Bet against Chuck Bresnahan (Cincy's defensive coordinator) against any good coach. He stinks. Smart coaches and smart QBs always have a field day against him." Of course, last week I ignored the advice and picked them over the Colts. No way I'm taking them against Shanahan.[/quote]

Just saying

[Guest Claptonrocks]

Game plan may not have been bad at the onset but after QB riddles the middle of the field for a half you'd think they'd try something different.
I thought Adam Dunn was patroling the middle.
Breshnahan is softbatch....

[Guest bengalrick]

if they were the right calls, then why did both the offense and defensive game plans NOT WORK!!! i guess its easy to say it in hindsight, but i was screaming it all game... not really the running the ball part, but the fact that the defense was giving up the short pass constantly, while giving no pressure w/ blitzes was the part of our plan that got us beat... it was like freaking chinese water torture... drip.............. drip............. drip............ ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

[TheBZ]

[quote name='76levi' post='412075' date='Dec 21 2006, 12:09 PM']So basically the gameplans looked bad because our players didn't execute well enough. Our back up tackles hurt us on offense, and we missed a few tackles on defense. I can't say that I never critcize our coaches, but I am realistsic about it. It is absolutely absurd the way some guys on here think they know more about football than Bratkowski who has one of the best resumes of any OC in the game, and Bresnehan who has...... well, okay, I worry sometimes about Bres as our DC, but I'm not going to accuse him of not even watching film. Given the incredible number of players lost to injury and suspensions I am impressed that the Bengals are still in the top half of the league in scoring defense. I'm definitely willing to give him another year.[/quote]

I agree at well.

They did not execute well enough on offense, in part due to the challenges face by Andrews and Whitworth; but also execution by Palmer, Chad, Henry. The fumble lost by Carson in the beginning was the worst kind of start for this team.

On D, they did exactly what they wanted to do...But Manning was precision-good, and they were not able to tackle well enough or generate any kind of turnover.

It was tough to watch...But it was just an example of the team failing to deliver. That's all.

BZ

[Guest Claptonrocks]

Speaking of Chris Henry....
Ive allways been a supporter of his .. I see the talent to be an explosive wideout but after that past few games Id like to say that his play is worthy of being called a chicken shit coward that should be playing touch football back in Lousisiana ..
He got lit up by pissburgh and has played scared since then..

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='412172' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:21 PM']I agree at well.

They did not execute well enough on offense, in part due to the challenges face by Andrews and Whitworth; but also execution by Palmer, Chad, Henry. The fumble lost by Carson in the beginning was the worst kind of start for this team.

On D, they did exactly what they wanted to do...But Manning was precision-good, and they were not able to tackle well enough or generate any kind of turnover.

It was tough to watch...But it was just an example of the team failing to deliver. That's all.

BZ[/quote]

before the game, if someone asked you this question, what would be your response? : "Our game plan on defense is to drop 7 on almost every play, and give them all the 5 to 10 yard passes they want, and we are not going to blitz our linebackers. Our one and only goal is to make sure we dont' get beat on the deep passes, and we will sacrafice all the short passes we get so we don't let up the big one..." is this a good idea against peyton manning?

[TheBZ]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='412179' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:27 PM']before the game, if someone asked you this question, what would be your response? : "Our game plan on defense is to drop 7 on almost every play, and give them all the 5 to 10 yard passes they want, and we are not going to blitz our linebackers. Our one and only goal is to make sure we dont' get beat on the deep passes, and we will sacrafice all the short passes we get so we don't let up the big one..." is this a good idea against peyton manning?[/quote]

Considering that they have harped on guarding against the big play all season, I would say:

'That makes sense. I hope one of the CBs comes up with a ball, and we can generate a turnover or two.'

BZ

[Actium]

Gameplan was fine going in, but after it became obvious it wasn't working very well it should have been changed. It wasn't--they stuck with it to the bitter end.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='412182' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:30 PM']Considering that they have harped on guarding against the big play all season, I would say:

'That makes sense. I hope one of the CBs comes up with a ball, and we can generate a turnover or two.'

BZ[/quote]

i would say "why would you let the best qb in my lifetime have unlimited time and a guarenteed out on every play?"

i mean, who the fuck plays a prevent offense for 4 straight quarters?

the only way to beat peyton manning is to be aggresive and take him out of his game...

[Jeb]

[quote name='cwing' post='412151' date='Dec 21 2006, 01:53 PM']Not according to Lapham. I do not recall it happening but Lap said on Bengals line that the offense began lining up a TE on Whitworth's side. He also said they gave Whit help with RB's. He also said Steinbach was just as much at fault as the two tackles. He said this is what he saw on tape.

Lap also said there were no issues with the defensive game plan. It did not work due to poor execution/missed tackles. Basically poor LBer play.[/quote]

I hear it said often that defenses are getting bigger and faster every year, IMO, I don't think Steinbach can compete for very much longer if the trend continues. He looked much better last year. This year he's getting owned quite often.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Revolution #9' post='412184' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:31 PM']Gameplan was fine going in, but after it became obvious it wasn't working very well it should have been changed. It wasn't--they stuck with it to the bitter end.[/quote]

fair enough response... i would tend to agree w/ this... its one thing to think that we can slow peyton down, but after he went like 10 for 10 on completions, we should have figured it out, and started switching it up on them...

[Guest Samurai J]

I want that defensive scheme that shut out San Diego 21-0 to be Cincys "full-time" defensive scheme.

(not the one that gave up 42 2nd half points...oh, wait...that is our current defensive scheme. )

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Samurai J' post='412195' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:42 PM']I want that defensive scheme that shut out San Diego 21-0 to be Cincys "full-time" defensive scheme.

(not the one that gave up 42 2nd half points...oh, wait...that is our current defensive scheme.)[/quote]

its funny how the same players can have such a dramatic difference in play based on the scheme, isn't it samurai?

[Guest Samurai J]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='412198' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:45 PM']its funny how the same players can have such a dramatic difference in play based on the scheme, isn't it samurai?[/quote]

Indeed. That right there should have a big HELLO written all over it.

(and in my view, it also makes the injuries and suspension excuses rather....blah)

[RASCAL]

[quote name='Samurai J' post='412195' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:42 PM']I want that defensive scheme that shut out San Diego 21-0 to be Cincys "full-time" defensive scheme.

(not the one that gave up 42 2nd half points...oh, wait...that is our current defensive scheme.)[/quote]
it was a constant barrage of blitzing that kicked the shit out of san diego for the first half. Something that should have happened to manning. He gets happy feet! We did NOT blitz him at all. So what if he burns us OCCASIONALLY as some have stated, but what if we would have busted his ass like we did rivers? We'll NEVER know because it's over! We didn't even try!

[Guest Samurai J]

[quote name='RASCAL' post='412208' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:57 PM']it was a constant barrage of blitzing that kicked the shit out of san diego for the first half. Something that should have happened to manning. He gets happy feet! We did NOT blitz him at all. So what if he burns us OCCASIONALLY as some have stated, but what if we would have busted his ass like we did rivers? We'll NEVER know because it's over! We didn't even try![/quote]

We blitzed..a little.

Definately not anything like what Chuck SCHEMED for against the Chargers though.

I'd much rather watch the defense get torced from bringing the house then watching that pitiful display from Monday.

[SlantNGo]

Blitzing Manning does not work unless you are able to totally confuse him so that he has no idea where it's coming from. We can't do that with our talent nor our scheme. From watching the way the Colts pass block, they execute in such a manner that they know Peyton will get the ball out on time, otherwise he's dead. Put Carson in that protection scheme, and he'll fumble a few times every game.

[SlantNGo]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='412179' date='Dec 21 2006, 03:27 PM']before the game, if someone asked you this question, what would be your response? : "Our game plan on defense is to drop 7 on almost every play, and give them all the 5 to 10 yard passes they want, and we are not going to blitz our linebackers. Our one and only goal is to make sure we dont' get beat on the deep passes, and we will sacrafice all the short passes we get so we don't let up the big one..." is this a good idea against peyton manning?[/quote]

His #3 receiver and #1 TE were out. I think that's a pretty good gameplan considering he'll probably not have the same kind of rhythm with them as he did with Stokley and Clark which should result in some dropped passes and missed throws.

Deltha getting owned in the red zone was the problem with our defense, not the scheme. We trusted Deltha to take on Harrison in man coverage in the red zone, and he got burnt for 3 TDs.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='SlantNGo' post='412218' date='Dec 21 2006, 03:14 PM']His #3 receiver and #1 TE were out. I think that's a pretty good gameplan considering he'll probably not have the same kind of rhythm with them as he did with Stokley and Clark which should result in some dropped passes and missed throws.

Deltha getting owned in the red zone was the problem with our defense, not the scheme. We trusted Deltha to take on Harrison in man coverage in the red zone, and he got burnt for 3 TDs.[/quote]

as i've said, coming into the game i can half way understand it... after around halftime though, it was pretty obvious that that wasn't working and should have been changed...

[EnglishBengal]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='412179' date='Dec 21 2006, 02:27 PM']before the game, if someone asked you this question, what would be your response? : "Our game plan on defense is to drop 7 on almost every play, and give them all the 5 to 10 yard passes they want, and we are not going to blitz our linebackers. Our one and only goal is to make sure we dont' get beat on the deep passes, and we will sacrafice all the short passes we get so we don't let up the big one..." is this a good idea against peyton manning?[/quote]
Basically that leads me to these questions:

Was the soft underneath we were giving the Colts, due to:

(1) Linebackers playing shit

(2) The coaching of the linebackers within the scheme being shit

(3) Combination of A and B



We use the same scheme as the Bears. Why does it work for them and not us. Do we not have good enough players to operate the scheme?

[RASCAL]

[quote name='SlantNGo' post='412216' date='Dec 21 2006, 03:11 PM']Blitzing Manning does not work unless you are able to totally confuse him so that he has no idea where it's coming from. We can't do that with our talent nor our scheme. From watching the way the Colts pass block, they execute in such a manner that they know Peyton will get the ball out on time, otherwise he's dead. Put Carson in that protection scheme, and he'll fumble a few times every game.[/quote]
you mean like pissburg did in last years playoff game?