Bengals1181 Posted December 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 The Colts lost and got there ass kicked in the process. Zimmer probably felt without Wayne, our dbs could cover their guys and there would be no need to throw multiple blitzes at the guy. Luck was getting hit a lot early in the season but they were still 6-2. Losing Wayne took away Andrew's security blanket and Hilton and Bey don't scare anyone right now. Our pass rush was designed to take running lanes away from Luck and force him to throw the ball to covered receivers. It worked fine although the missed tackles were annoying but have not been an ongoing issue. to take a different look at it, Luck had 2 rushes Sunday. He came in averaging 4 a game, and had 4 or more rushes in 9 of his 12 games this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 The Colts lost and got there ass kicked in the process. Zimmer probably felt without Wayne, our dbs could cover their guys and there would be no need to throw multiple blitzes at the guy. Luck was getting hit a lot early in the season but they were still 6-2. Losing Wayne took away Andrew's security blanket and Hilton and Bey don't scare anyone right now. Our pass rush was designed to take running lanes away from Luck and force him to throw the ball to covered receivers. It worked fine although the missed tackles were annoying but have not been an ongoing issue. Obviously, we played well enough to win. 2 of the TDs were flukes and 2 we were probably playing soft coverages due to the time and score. That still doesn't change the fact that we didn't get much pressure on him, even in the first half when it was 0-0 and 7-0 as it was for most of the half. No one is saying that this is some referendum on the D, just that is an area that needs to improve. The head coach and now some players have come out and said they didn't rush the passer well in the game, so obviously they believe it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Obviously, we played well enough to win. 2 of the TDs were flukes and 2 we were probably playing soft coverages due to the time and score. That still doesn't change the fact that we didn't get much pressure on him, even in the first half when it was 0-0 and 7-0 as it was for most of the half. No one is saying that this is some referendum on the D, just that is an area that needs to improve. The head coach and now some players have come out and said they didn't rush the passer well in the game, so obviously they believe it too. It looked like Indy was keeping an extra man in there in anticipation of multiple blitzes by Zimmer. Taking away another receiver from the pattern when your receivers are so-so to begin with only helped us. I think they felt they would gain way more yardage on the ground due to the extra blocking but it never happened. Luck did have one big run that helped them score a TD and close the gap to 7 but that was as close as it would get. 14 unanswered points changed the defensive strategy. Offense allowed the defense to play soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Obviously, we played well enough to win. 2 of the TDs were flukes and 2 we were probably playing soft coverages due to the time and score. That still doesn't change the fact that we didn't get much pressure on him, even in the first half when it was 0-0 and 7-0 as it was for most of the half. No one is saying that this is some referendum on the D, just that is an area that needs to improve. The head coach and now some players have come out and said they didn't rush the passer well in the game, so obviously they believe it too. It's not a matter of being defensive.. It's a matter of differing opinions. OF course Zimmer and Marvin would have loved for the line to get more pressure.. And if you were going to criticize something in the defense besides some really terrible tackling, that would be a place to point. The reality is though, there are different ways to scheme the D-Line depending on th QB.. Some guys are more mobile and can make you pay for selling out on the rush so you need to focus on containment. I think if you watch the game again you will see the d-line seems more concerned with keeping Luck contained than applying pressure.. Could they have generated more pressure? Sure, but considering the success overall of the defensive scheme, I'm not sure we aren't nit-picking some.. Very rarely are you going to be absolutely perfect on Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 Obviously, we played well enough to win. 2 of the TDs were flukes and 2 we were probably playing soft coverages due to the time and score. That still doesn't change the fact that we didn't get much pressure on him, even in the first half when it was 0-0 and 7-0 as it was for most of the half. No one is saying that this is some referendum on the D, just that is an area that needs to improve. The head coach and now some players have come out and said they didn't rush the passer well in the game, so obviously they believe it too. The problem is the linking of this game to potential match up with Peyton. I could be wrong but last meeting the D barely sacked Peyton and almost won. I think they had a late 4th qtr lead. The recent Colts game was not demonstration on qb destruction like we have seen. However there was some pressure. Finishing plays could have gotten them 3 sacks. I just think people look at 48 attempts and zero sacks and draw sweeping conclusions. Reality is due to the lead Bengals were giving them stuff that sacrificed stats in route to victory. Similar in SD when they clearly left at least on TD on the field to keep the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted December 10, 2013 Report Share Posted December 10, 2013 So they were just letting Luck get rocked for the entire season and decided to finally mke a change against us?Obviously, teams make changes every week. We still got much less pressure than the average team did against them. Maybe they threw quicker shorter passes than normal, if so that would obviously be one explanation. Sure - but the PFF's guy's analysis is assuming the Colts' ability as a constant to rate our defensive performance. This is a constant issue with these rating sites - a lot of what happens on a field can be adapted by coaches' decision on both sides. One team runs up the score on a bad team, the other goes ball control in Q2 for a comfortable win. Whose offense looks better? I don't know if the Colt's gameplan was similar for our game and for all the others. If it were, though, it doesn't say much for their coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.