Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 88939)

I’ll only agree with you to a limited extent on this statement. There’s no denying that Ballard selected Smith and signed Glowinski, so there’s no accident there. Someone posted a quote a few days ago, however, that he feels he got “lucky” with regard to Smith because he didn’t really view him as RT. So you’re right to this extent.

On this last point, did anything during the Raiders game change your view at all that Good or Clark would be a better fit at RT?

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 88962)

What does Autry offer that Anderson didn't do better?

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 88997)

I see people are still debating moves strictly in the context of "would it have made the 2018 team better?"

Originally Posted by Puck (Post 88976)

HE DIDNT WANT TO PLAY IN A 4-3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I hope all the other teams "abuse" us for 200 + rushing yards the rest of the way!

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 89015)

Puck, this may have been asked and answered before, but where are you getting that from? Is it insider info? I’m not necessarily disputing it, but I’ve never found it anyway else.

He played in a 4-3 in NY and he’s playing in a 4-3 now in Oakland. So it seems strange.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89003)

To clarify for everyone, Ballard is not my dad. Seriously, though, if my comments come off as though I have been offended by yours or anyone else’s comments, then I’m not expressing myself well at all. I am genuinely interested in your responses to my questions because I genuinely want to understand your position. I agree that I’ve ended up defending Ballard quite a bit, but that’s because you’ll have to admit that until recently the prevailing opinion seemed to be that he was throwing away multiple seasons, and was making poor draft and personnel decisions. I happen to strongly disagree with that line of thinking, and the strict businesslike approach he’s taking to running the team really appeals to me. I think it literally gives us a competitive advantage, and that advantage will become more and more apparent as time goes on.

As a result, I’ll usually challenge opinions to the contrary if they’re not explained in a way that makes sense to me. There’s a lot of smart people on this board, and lots who know WAY more than me about the X’s and O’s, so I’m interested in what all of you have to say – particularly when it sounds way out of line to me. But I’m certainly open to the idea that the guy makes mistakes, and the concept (however remote) that I might not be correct either.

In your comment, you simply said that we’d be better with Hankins, Simon and Anderson. Since there was no explanation for this statement, I asked for more detail, and in the process laid out my thinking on the issue so you could respond. You provided more info for me to consider in your response. Based upon that response, I can now decide whether I think your original comments have any merit or not (FYI the verdict is in - they do not as to Hankins and Simon, but maybe some as to Anderson/Autry).

Look, it wouldn’t be very fun if everyone just posted their gripes and complaints here, and then everyone else just agreed. If that’s all everyone hears then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone needs the perspective that comes from genuine, respectful disagreement (or even disrespectful agreement that has actual substance). As I think you mentioned in a prior post, responses consisting only of insults are not useful. I’ve tried to provide meaningful detail when I post - much to your dismay given the length of some of my admittedly long posts – but that’s only so that people will provide equally detailed responses and the discussion will have some useful substance.

Originally Posted by Puck (Post 89016)

I dont have the article but he wanted out of NY because of the switch to 4-3

I assume he changed his mind after no one was coming after him in FA and maybe Chuckie promised him something. It is strange that he ended up there.

My initial thought on why he left was that he had a clause in his contract with us that he could leave if we didn't stay in a 3-4. If you think about it it was kind of strange that he chose to come here to begin with.

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish (Post 89017)

Thanks FatDT, you've got him going on 1000 word diatribe again. ;)

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 88962)

What does Autry offer that Anderson didn't do better?

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 89005)

Smith struggled early but bounced back. Glowinski has been fantastic. The way Clark played at LT makes me wonder but it doesn’t matter now. We have no way of knowing what a right side of smith and Clark or Good would look like. The results are just fine.

And yes accidental because nobody thought glowinski would play this well and smith didn’t really look comfortable to me at rt in preseason. Nothing wrong with lucking into players.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89033)

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 89007)

Every year is important with an elite qb. I will never believe otherwise

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 89028)

Giants played a 4-3 when he was drafted. To my knowledge that’s all he played in on the Giants. My understanding was he was pissed when he was moved from 1-tech to 3-tech for Damon Harrison. And Harrison, JPP, and Tucker (?) all got paid leaving little money for Hankins and him not playing his more natural position. I’ve never seen anything to indicate he was against playing in a 4-3. His best years as a pro came in a 4-3. And I believe last year in Indy was his only year in a 3-4. Now he’s back in a 4-3 again. I don’t believe Hanskins was the driver for being released. For a guy driven by money to ask for his release AFTER the opening of free agency makes absolutely no sense. Especially considering he was a late signer with the Colts when everyone balked at his asking price. He had to know his market would be somewhat limited.

Originally Posted by sherck (Post 89108)

Just saw this analysis:


FINALLY, a legit O-Line!

Man, I have been wanting that since we drafted Andrew!

Walk Worthy,

Originally Posted by Puck (Post 89110)

Smitty may have the article

Originally Posted by 1965southpaw (Post 89115)

I heard Big Joe say today that our oline coach told him this week that he thinks Ryan Kelly is the best center in the NFL.....I don't get the sense that this coach is one who tends to say positive things just because.....

Originally Posted by smitty46953 (Post 89116)

I remember when we signed him that he said he wanted a 3-4 and not a 4-3 but don't recall if was an article or a Twitter comment. :cool:

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman (Post 89109)

So far this year :

10 sacks on about 340 pass attempts

Once every 34 attempts.

I didn't look specifically, but it may be the lowest rate in the league for a starting QB. Its at least among the lowest. Of the starters the lowest number of sacks for the year is 8 or 9 and he is passing more than them, more attempts

I did not look up prior years, but I am guessing that is much improved, since it seemed like before he was getting hit or pressure about every other attempt

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89138)

You are correct - our sack rate is lowest in the league (2.92%).
Second lowest is Pittsburg at 3.37% (10 sacks in 297 attempts)
For context, League average is 7.02%
Worst is San Fran at a whopping 12.02% (31 sacks in 258 attempts). When do we get to play them?

Last year, the Colts sack rate was - are you ready for this - 11.5% (56 sacks in 487 attempts). Crazy.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/t...assingAttempts

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 89148)

That's absurd. Imagine if we see a similar type of improvement on defense next year.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89138)

You are correct - our sack rate is lowest in the league (2.92%).
Second lowest is Pittsburg at 3.37% (10 sacks in 297 attempts)
For context, League average is 7.02%
Worst is San Fran at a whopping 12.02% (31 sacks in 258 attempts). When do we get to play them?

Last year, the Colts sack rate was - are you ready for this - 11.5% (56 sacks in 487 attempts). Crazy.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/t...assingAttempts

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89138)

You are correct - our sack rate is lowest in the league (2.92%).
Second lowest is Pittsburg at 3.37% (10 sacks in 297 attempts)
For context, League average is 7.02%
Worst is San Fran at a whopping 12.02% (31 sacks in 258 attempts). When do we get to play them?

Last year, the Colts sack rate was - are you ready for this - 11.5% (56 sacks in 487 attempts). Crazy.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/t...assingAttempts

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 89064)

The Raiders oline is decent, I wouldn’t look too deep into this matchup. Also they were clogging the middle, dragging guys down, tripping, really trying to eliminate those passing lanes. Not saying we don’t need an upgrade on the dline, we do, but this isn’t the game I would use to measure it.

Did Mack look a step slower to anyone when compared to last week? He did to me. I know he had the ankle issue, I think he scores on that long run if healthy. I saw a couple USF games a few years ago and Mack looks like he did then. Fast through the hole and into the second level lightning quick. But his patience for that hole to open seems better also. That shoulder must have really bothered him last year.

Good thing next year’s draft is a defensive one. We are going to need all those picks.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89150)

We have literally moved from worst to first on sack rate. It is pretty shocking.

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 89148)

That's absurd. Imagine if we see a similar type of improvement on defense next year.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89150)

We have literally moved from worst to first on sack rate. It is pretty shocking.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89150)

We have literally moved from worst to first on sack rate. It is pretty shocking.

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 89186)

Not really. The offense was terrible last year. The play calling and Brissett was terrible. Had no idea what to do with the ball half the time

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 89186)

Not really. The offense was terrible last year. The play calling and Brissett was terrible. Had no idea what to do with the ball half the time

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89193)

While the difference in QB is worthwhile to note, it only explains some of the difference. While we'll never know how many sacks Luck would have taken had he been our QB last year, we do know than in 2016 (when he played about half the season before injury) our sack rate was 7.53% - still well above the league average (6.11%) that season. In 2015, the last year when he served as the QB for an entire season, the sack rate was 5.98%, slightly lower than the league average that season (6.48%).

Obviously, there are variables between any season that won't allow a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but the overall picture that gets painted is that we are markedly better at protecting the QB this season.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89193)

While the difference in QB is worthwhile to note, it only explains some of the difference. While we'll never know how many sacks Luck would have taken had he been our QB last year, we do know than in 2016 (when he played about half the season before injury) our sack rate was 7.53% - still well above the league average (6.11%) that season. In 2015, the last year when he served as the QB for an entire season, the sack rate was 5.98%, slightly lower than the league average that season (6.48%).

Obviously, there are variables between any season that won't allow a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but the overall picture that gets painted is that we are markedly better at protecting the QB this season.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 89197)

Even those stats don’t take into account the change in play calling. The difference is huge. The Colts are 30th in yards per completion. For most of Lucks career they’ve been in the top 10. Shorter quicker passes and having a good check down option help the OLine tremendously. The previous coaching staff didn’t do the OLine any favors with their scheme or play calling.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89199)

That's a fair point as well. Here's what I'm seeing as to yards per completion:

2018 - 9.38 yards per completion (league average 10.91) - Rank 30th
2017 - 10.15 yards per completion (league average 10.58) - Rank 23rd
2016 - 11.36 yards per completion (league average 10.73) - Rank 8th
2015 - 10.43 yards per completion (league average 10.83) - Rank 20th

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89199)

That's a fair point as well. Here's what I'm seeing as to yards per completion:

2018 - 9.38 yards per completion (league average 10.91) - Rank 30th
2017 - 10.15 yards per completion (league average 10.58) - Rank 23rd
2016 - 11.36 yards per completion (league average 10.73) - Rank 8th
2015 - 10.43 yards per completion (league average 10.83) - Rank 20th

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 89201)

Let’s make sure we are showing the whole picture:

2014 - 11.8 ypc - rank 3rd
2013 - 11.2 ypc - rank 10th
2012 - 12.0 ypc - rank 3rd

The only two years out of the top 10 were the year Luck missed and the year he missed over half the season. The difference with a healthy and playing Luck is stark.

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 89203)

Compare the running game numbers. When you are behind, you throw more. When you can run at will, you take less chances in the air.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 89214)

Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. Rm1369 was making the point that the current low sack rate may be a product, at least in part, of the fact that Luck has been making quicker, shorter throws (as evidenced by his career low YPC number this year) and thus the defensive players haven't had as much time to get to him for a sack.

You bring up the running numbers, but I guess I don't know what you want to compare - are you saying that there should be a correlation between a high sack rate and a poor rushing Yards Per Attempt (YPA) rate? If so, then please back it up with numbers so we can see if it makes sense.