DRC Play in End Zone

guys make bad plays. It happens. He's been good when he's been on the field and I don't think he's played soft. It was a terrible play, but I'll give him a pass on it.

It was a bad play, it doesn't make him a bad player. It was a lapse in concentration, my guess is that once he got a hold of the ball, he relaxed. He's a good player because he was in position to make the play, he just has to finish it.

You're making way too much of it. He should have made the play but he couldn't hang on. He was stride for stride, got all the way up to get his hands on the ball and almost came down with it. He just didn't have a good enough hold of it and Hilton took it away.

Calling DRC "soft" because of that is dumb.

The other guy won that battle.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

That play was a 50 50 ball and DRC made a play on it and basically had the int. Hilton and DRC both fought hard for that ball and it happened to slip out and land in hiltons lap. Nothin DRC could of done it was a fluke play and it happens all the time in the NFL. Tough break but it happens. To call the guy soft because of it, well, thats just dumb

.

bothers me. You have to come down with that INT if you are a big time player. You have too.

I am not going to write the guy off, but to me it seems soft.

but I think you are looking too far into it. He usually makes those plays, but he got beat. He was battling injuries just being out there. He has not been soft for us.

the Giants of the last few years. Good enough to be there to make a play, but not finishing. Whether its a play like that, a dropped passed, a missed throw, a fumble, a missed tackle....

It seems like there are a handful of plays every game where we are there to make, and we just dont. This play, Rolel dropping an INT, Randle dropping a 3rd down pass, Eli missing Parker across the middle, guys just missing sacks.

Plays like this separates a 6-7 win team from a 10-11 win team.

I mean I feel that way about that play. Of course it is one play, but something about it seems unique. He went up and got it, he had it and had it stolen.

It was not 50/50 to me. I was curious as to what some of you guys thought. Obviously I am in the minority, but still seems soft to me.

He's played well so far and has gutted it out with his injury. He just couldn't make the play.

Its not like his pants fell down as he was chasing an opposing player to the end zone or something. I mean...thats the kind of thing that sticks with you.

Sometimes things just happen.

is an example of an excellent CB play. stride for stride, great position, great timing on leap, good hands, almost full extension. He lost it on the way down in a flukish way and hat goes off to Hilton to come up with it. Your criticism is not warranted. About the same criticism that Harrison deserves on the Tyree play... two guys going for the ball aggressively and one guy winning. Harrison must be soft too.

Tyree play at all.

Certainly it is not the same in importance.

Well hopefully he makes some big plays this week. With Prince out he is the last guy of note at the CB spot

Still seems like a top guy would win the battle. For example Giants are heading to play the champs next week. Could you picture Sherman having the ball ripped from him like that in the end zone?

was the fact he didn't just bat the fucking ball down. That's all I want from my DB's. Do no allow a completion. If a pick isn't gift wrapped then just knock it down. FUCK

If he has a chance to pick it off and create a turnover, I want him to try to catch it.. not just bat it down.

You bat a pass like that down if the team is going for it on 4th down and it's a field position thing. If you have a chance at forcing a turnover, you have to go for it. DRC didn't do anything wrong other than hang onto the ball.

It was one play amongst a myriad of shit plays in a shit game. And yes, randle sucks. I've seen enough of that fucker.

the field with a burner like Hilton, leap, and make a play on the ball like with DRC's abilities. Sherman plays a bump and run style. If Sherman was playing his and the Hawks' style, he probably disrupts Hilton at the line and Hawks get a sack. If Hilton would have the ability to get past the press and time to get to the endzone, he would have been past Sherman by two, three strides with his speed. And an easy TD instead of a fight for the ball. DRC's game is predicated on speed and athleticism. Apples and oranges.

of your SB 42 hat.

He(TY) wanted it more.

It's called 'heart'.

In comment 11960033 Carthonfan said:

Quote:

the field with a burner like Hilton, leap, and make a play on the ball like with DRC's abilities. Sherman plays a bump and run style. If Sherman was playing his and the Hawks' style, he probably disrupts Hilton at the line and Hawks get a sack. If Hilton would have the ability to get past the press and time to get to the endzone, he would have been past Sherman by two, three strides with his speed. And an easy TD instead of a fight for the ball. DRC's game is predicated on speed and athleticism. Apples and oranges.

Interesting point, I was thinking more of the intensity, the physicality. Those are the qualities you want in all defenders regardless of position.

In comment 11960034 old man said:

Quote:

of your SB 42 hat. He(TY) wanted it more. It's called 'heart'.

Yes, this is how I feel about it as well. The opposing player wanted it more. He made the play.

He opts to bat it down and they don't score. I like that better. We were getting the ball back anyway. Just my opinion.

and it's all based on the result. You don't bat that ball down when you can make a play and intercept it. He was in a pretty good position to do that as well, he just missed it.

In comment 11960047 bradshaw44 said:

Quote:

He opts to bat it down and they don't score. I like that better. We were getting the ball back anyway. Just my opinion.

It was 2nd and 15 on our 31 yard line.

So.. no.

but by your logic you would have hated D Sanders if physicality is the only metric. Corey Webster too. There are other ways to contribute than to be a big strong corner. DRC is not the problem with the D. it is a lack of pass rush, cover LBs, and slot corners and now with Amukamara out DRC is actually one of the few bright spots.

In comment 11960047 bradshaw44 said:

Quote:

He opts to bat it down and they don't score. I like that better. We were getting the ball back anyway. Just my opinion.

Huh? It was 2nd down, and they were already in FG range. An INT there completely changes the game. It is ridiculous to expect a DB to just knock any pass down, unless it's 4th down. EVERY NFL coach would completely disagree with you.

Made a very interesting view of the play. He said that the wa ythat DRC came down with the ball, his momentum kept for fully securing the ball and that Hilton fell in such a flukish manner, that he was able to be in the right place when the ball starting coming out..

He said that DRC did exactly what he was suppose to do and there was no "he wanted it more" garbage in that play. It was just the way he was coming down with it..

it was just a fluke play. I would have preferred DRC to go up and catch it with his hands rather than letting it fall into his arms, but he made a good enough play on the ball and it slipped through his arms. Just a bad play for us, it happens. I've been very happy with DRC when he's been on the field.

Chris Carter
GMANinDC : 11:40 am : link : reply
Made a very interesting view of the play. He said that the wa ythat DRC came down with the ball, his momentum kept for fully securing the ball and that Hilton fell in such a flukish manner, that he was able to be in the right place when the ball starting coming out..

He said that DRC did exactly what he was suppose to do and there was no "he wanted it more" garbage in that play. It was just the way he was coming down with it..

the Giants catch some breaks on fluke plays this week. Lord knows they need them.

you make good points that he could be more tough. A more physical player could have wrestled the ball away. That said, I give him a pass. He was in the right position to make a play, went for it, but lost the battle. Overall his cornerback play has been at least good.

In that situation, would a better play have been to swat the ball away, or go for the interception? I know Chris Carter supported going for the INT.

Luck finished the game clean, but was oh so close on three turnovers (2 INTs, fumble).

Sometimes that's just how it goes......

DRC admitted, obviously, that's a play he has to make and finish.

What goes around comes around again. Someone will pay for all this, eventually.

Not could have, but should have. But, that would only have overturned the TD. It wouldn't have given the giants the ball.

I think the trend that you/we find bothersome is how NYG players frequently do not finish plays.

Not finishing cost the 2010 team a playoff spot.

Finishing won the 2007 and 2011 team the whole thing (with plenty of luck etc mixed in, of course).

Whether it's a pass defense, or a reception, or a block, or a tackle, the list is long and damning. This team doesn't consistently finish, it more consistently makes mental and physical errors. Difficult to watch for 32 games now.

He consistently blows off tackles and grabs jerseys instead of finishing properly, he's always been this way.

He had the INT but as they both fell the other guy had better leverage and took the ball away, it happens.

had the ball taken away from him. Things happen, people lose their grip.

He's the best defender we have and it hasn't even been close, especially now that Prince is out.

Players, even the best ones, make mistakes. The better ones just make less. Look at Peyton, he just got the shit kicked out of him by an average Pats D, but he's still a great QB. A similar play happened to Richard Sherman this year

Who made an outstanding play. Guys in the NFL are known to do that sometimes.

is what's wrong with the thread. It would be like criticizing the Giants DL because they didn't get a better push on the play Luck fumbled the handoff to bradshaw and he still got the first down.

That exemplified the past two years. We had a chance to get like 4 turnovers monday and came away with none. Bounces aren't going our way. Key plays aren't being made.

That's why I wonder why so much is made of coaching when the execution suffers so much at times.

I think, at this point, it is fair to question the coaching because of the lack of execution. When a team simply doesn't execute for one game, it happens. When it happens several games a year for a few years, that is a pattern that has to at least have you considering the coaches as culprits. Plus, if I have to hear one more time what a great week of practice they had after a brutal loss I will lose it. Maybe they aren't practicing properly (i.e. the right plays, formations, etc.). Maybe, their gameplan sucks, so it doesn't matter how it looked in practice.

I don't see how coaching could help on the DRC play. He was in the right spot, he read the play correctly but as they fell the other player had better leverage and controlled the ball. That isn't a coaching issue.

Hilton is a 510 finesse wr. Terrible play.by DRC.

has to come into question, but it isn't an either/or scenario as many believe. It is intertwined. Frankly, the game thread this week was a shitshow with people calling for TC's head throughout the game.

We need to face the fact that the coaches haven't excelled, but that the horses just aren't there to work with, either. When Hosley sees extensive action, that's all you need to know about the state of our DB's. When Preston Parker is targeted 7 times in a game - you have further proof.

DRC is a very inconsistent player and not a very physical one either. He got his ass kicked on that one. Hilton just wanted it more.

And that's why I have never thought that DRC was really a top corner. He will make some big plays, but he will also give up some big plays, and that was a huge play in that game. Could have been a turning point. Instead it all but cemented a Colts win.

Time to move on to the next loss in another lost season.

In comment 11960100 Section331 said:

Quote:

In comment 11960047 bradshaw44 said: Quote: He opts to bat it down and they don't score. I like that better. We were getting the ball back anyway. Just my opinion. Huh? It was 2nd down, and they were already in FG range. An INT there completely changes the game. It is ridiculous to expect a DB to just knock any pass down, unless it's 4th down. EVERY NFL coach would completely disagree with you.

Pardon my misinterpretation of the down. But plenty of great DB's are great because they knock the ball down. The DB's job isn't interceptions. That's why they are judged on pass defenses.

It couldn't. I was responding specifically to FatMan, whose post seemed to be talking in generalities, not just that play.

I disagree on both examples. On the surface, those seem like sound statements. But, I didn't think the personnel at CB or WR were the key factors in the loss. Rather, I think the gameplans and playcalling on both sides were bigger issues. Yes, we were/are decimated at CB. But, the coverage wasn't terrible. What was terrible was dialing up what seemd like 40+ blitzes on 50 pass plays and coming away with 1 sack. Ayers had an outstanding individual effort. But, as a whole, the front did not generate enough pressure for the calls that were made. It was more poorly designed blitzes. If you blitz every down, but most of the blitzes are coming on delays and/or 10 yard drops, how do you expect to get to the QB?

As for WR, it wasn't so much that Parker was on the field and dropped so many balls. The drops are on him. But, why did it take until the game was already out of hand to feed Beckham the ball? Why was Parker targeted so much? why do we insist on trying to run the ball almost every 1st down even when the game doesn't dictate it and the running game is generating absolutely nothing? And on and on.

Beckham was double covered most of the first half. Parker was the guy to throw to. But he didn't execute well. Is that on coaching?

Perhaps partly, but that's why I say they are intertwined.

Our only chance to disrupt the Colts O was to blitz. It is the same formula the Steelers used. I don't think the blitzes were necessarily poorly designed, but they weren't effective for a variety of reasons.

Look at the angst over when we run the ball. People keep laughing at the idea of balance, but when we only had to pass and the colts knew it, we weren't much more effective. But we aren't executing the running game well at all. Again, probably some due to coaching, but a lot due to the talent dropoff from Jennings to williams.

But expecting a nuanced discussion from most of this board is quickly becoming a waste of time. It is less about discussion and more about a witch hunt over results.

Even in this thread, you have someone intimating that our top DB sucks because he played excellent coverage, made a great play on the ball, but was outmuscled for a TD. It is the results-based analysis that has become way too common around here for several years.

i do not like drc as a player. kind of pissed the giants spent huge $$$ on this guy

Amazing. One week, the problem with the defense is that we don't blitz enough. The next week, we throw the sink at them and blitz from every gap imaginable and the problem is that we blitzed too much.

Can't win.

I think they absolutely were poorly designed, as they usually are. Repeatedly, the LBs blitzed on a delay or after first dropping back like they weren't blitzing. It wasn't working. It wasn't working to bring DBs on a delay. I agree the plan to blitz was correct. I think the blitzes we dialed up were terrible.

As for WR, I think our playcalling was terrible. First, we constantly put ourselves in a hole by running in first down and often second down. Second, they did nothing to get favorable matchups for Beckham or Randle. Whether or not you believe we should have run bunch formations like Gruden repeated ad nausea, we still could have done things to alter the matchups. We did little to put anyone in motion. We didn't flood zones. Instead, we kept calling plays with one of those guys in isolation with Davis, which just wasn't working. Why not flare more TEs/RBs underneath the WR to force the Colts to consider changing their coverage? Or motion Beckaham/Randle? Or put twins or trips to that side? Instead, we just kept running them in intermediate to deep patterns against a CB who was completely shutting them down with help over the top. It just makes no sense.

Plus, I don't think the various calls for coaching changes ranging from Coughlin to Quinn to Fewell was born out of this isolated game. This is coming in the middle of yet another shitstorm of a season. It is coming in the middle of what appears to be the 3rd straight season with no playoffs and 5th in 6 years. It is coming during a game that has come to represent this team over the last 3 years...a big game in which the team seemed completely unprepared and not ready to play.

There is no doubt we have been hit with a ton of injuries, not just this year, but in other years. But, at some time, the team has to actually rise up. some of that is on the GM, as our depth at some positions is questionable. But, I saw people question the CB depth. This is one position Reese actually did a good job addressing. In the offseason he pickd up DRC and Bowman and Thurmond. We actually had a deep corps of CBs. But, by yesterday we had 5th and 6th string players in one of the top 2 CB spots. That is not on Reese. other positions lack of depth or starter quality certainly is, though.

we did a lot of flooding of zones and using motion. None of it seemed to work because of the drops and eli not being as accurate as he could have been.

We blitzed a lot of different ways - some with delays, some without. Frankly, I don't know if it is a design issue. I saw one blitz where McClian delayed, got to the LOS and then looked like he just shuffled his feet for awhile. On the one Luck run for a first down, Williams is in position to make a play and seemed to shy away from a direct hit.

I think both coaching and execution is to blame, but i find myself struggling to even figure out where that line is crossed - because the talent looks subpar to me. Right now, we have a rookie RB with no vision and a veteran with vision who is as slow as I am. How do you coach around that? I guess we could throw 50 times, like we did. eli will get his 300 yards and we will lose games 40-24.

Like arc juts said - you can't win here when we lose. If we pass 50 times and lose by 25, people will probably rip McAdoo for not even trying to run, just like Fewell gets ripped for blitzing TOO much.

That is where coaching comes into play. When you have a rookie RB with tentative play, you don't force feed him the ball every first down. When you have LBs that are not the fastest in the league, why do you keep blitzing them from 10 yards deep or on a delay? When plays are not working over and over, why do you keep calling them?

I didn't notice a lot of flooding zones or motion from WRs. We motioned the TE a lot, in and out of the backfield and even motioned a WR into the backfield a few times. But, I didn't notice a lot of motioning of WRs across a formation, for example.

I'm not ripping Fewell for blitzing too much. I'm ripping him for terrible blitzes. There is a difference and it isn't isolated to this game. Likewise, I am not ripping McAdoo just for this game for running Williams too much. I am ripping him for calling the same running plays on 1st and second down with Williams for a few games with the same terrible results. one benefit of the WC style offense is that the passing game can be very effective at both setting up the run and filling in similarly to a good running game. The fact that we were having success with Jennings made that less important, but it was a selling point of this offense before the season started. Well, where is the passing gamer to set up the run?

A lot of the blitzes in the first half resulted in hits on Luck and rushed throws that were incomplete. They were much more effective than they've been at other points this year. We got free rushers quite a few times which is the entire point. It's on the player to make the play. We left plays on the field.

The problem is that the Colts are 1st in points and yards this year and they are scoring on everyone. They're going to get their points eventually. We were undermanned on both sides of the ball and not well enough equipped to match them offensively or stop them defensively.

I thought the offensive game plan was a little off seeing as we didn't even bother to test the area where they had so much trouble stopping the Steelers, but... again, the execution by the players was just shitty. Way too many drops and missed chances.

I felt like a lot of the hits on Luck were more the individual effort of Ayers. Even still, I want to know how you can blitz more than 40 times and get 1 sack and no turnovers?

I'll add 1 more thing. I admit that this particular game pushed over the tipping point of mentioning in season that it might be time for Coughlin to go. That, again, was not the result of this 1 game, but 3 years of similar games. But, I also said I would be more inclined to keep Coughlin if Fewell and Quinn were fired.

In comment 11960369 Matt M. said:

Quote:

I felt like a lot of the hits on Luck were more the individual effort of Ayers. Even still, I want to know how you can blitz more than 40 times and get 1 sack and no turnovers?

Pretty easily when you're playing Andrew Luck and 2 of your DB's drop INT's. Luck fumbled on a play where he got hit and managed to recover it and a botched handoff also wound up right in Bradshaw's hands. We could have had anywhere between 1-4 turnovers. They were there but the ball didn't bounce our way and our guys didn't finish plays.

someitme during the off-season, someone posted .jpg files of the blitzes and how the LB-ers were doing. If you were to looka thtem, i think arc might know who posted them, it shows guys like Herzlich, Paysinger and Willimas blitzing and running into their own man or going the wrong way.

I noticed that on a few blitzes that guys were getting to the line and then becoming unsure of what to do afterwards..Most got gobbled up in the mesh at the line and other got blocked by Bradshaw, who is great at Pass protection..

What appears to me, is that our personel are not that instinctive in blitzing..

That is one perspective. Another is that they are not well coached. This has been an issue regardless of the personnel we've had at LB under Fewell. i just think his defense in general is terrible and more specifically his plays and schemes do not put players in positions to succeed.

between Matt and FM is good and all, but the issue of getting our asses thoroughly handed to us in losses over the course of YEARS is the result of coaching. we have a lack of talent, granted, but so do other teams and while they lose how often are they scoring 0 points, or being blown out by 2 touchdowns before the 4th quarter?

for the revolving door we have had over the years, if the coaches were above average, would have cultivated some players and harness any/all ability out of them to get max effort. instead we watch JPP stunt on a play only to shuffle down the line like he is foxtrotting. Either he is THAT dumb, and doesn't listen, if that is the case, he should be cut. Alternatively if that is the message to these guys and/or the staff is ok with those types of results and don't change the outcomes by switching the players or showing how to execute properly then you can't be 50/50 it is an indictment on one party... Player/coaches/GM (talent scouting&signing)

no matter who we have had that has played LB it has been almost impossible for our blitzes to hit home on a consistent basis... its almost like they practice RUN blitzes to fill in gaps on the line as opposed to try and hit the QB.

the personnel has changed over the course of years, so when the same shit happens over and over and over again you have to then look at the constants... that would be ELI and TC...

take your pick on where the axe should fall, and who gets to stay and try be the captain of this ship going forward.

In comment 11960398 GMANinDC said:

Quote:

someitme during the off-season, someone posted .jpg files of the blitzes and how the LB-ers were doing. If you were to looka thtem, i think arc might know who posted them, it shows guys like Herzlich, Paysinger and Willimas blitzing and running into their own man or going the wrong way. I noticed that on a few blitzes that guys were getting to the line and then becoming unsure of what to do afterwards..Most got gobbled up in the mesh at the line and other got blocked by Bradshaw, who is great at Pass protection.. What appears to me, is that our personel are not that instinctive in blitzing..

again adding from my post just above... that doesn't matter if it is something that we as fans can see happening OVER AND OVER again year after year. put in someone who CAN blitz, or teach them how to blitz. if they are not great players w/ great ability at least give maximum effort and fucking hit someone in the mouth hard as hell... or the coaches just don't see the blitzing being so bad and don't try to correct it.

again a 1 game or 1/2 season showing is one thing, but if it is over the course of YEARS... that has to be on the staff

No clue how someone watches a game where rushers have free lanes to a QB and can't sack him or get blocked by a RB and sees DB's with their hands on what should have been INT's two times but don't come away with it and then decides that the players are "not in a position to succeed"

Mind blowing, really. Makes absolutely zero sense to draw that conclusion when players blatantly WERE in positions to make plays and did not make them.

And wouldn't Ayers have had to be in a position to succeed to have been such a factor? Or does it only count when the players DON'T make a play? Not sure how this works.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes it was really just a great individual effort of beating the guy in front of him. But, either way, one guy being the only one consistently able to make plays is not something to hang your hat on.

my stance that people look at this team in a vacuum when they act as if we are the only team getting blown out. Jesus, the Panthers just had their asses handed to them at home in a blowout, which has happened to them quite a bit. we did it to them a few years ago and they returned the favor last year. Teams generally looked at as good like the Falcons and Bears have had some horrible losses over the past few years. The mighty chargers were just blanked by Miami.

I don't know why we act as if the giants are the only team performing like this. Perhaps it is because we don't have a perspective on the rest of the league or reality? That would make the comments in the game threads easier to understand.

I didn't see tons of guys in the lanes to make plays. I saw Ayers consistently in the backfield. I also saw various LBs blitzing right into an OL, stopping at the LOS on blitzes, slow in getting to the LOS on blitzes, etc. That is not being in position to make plays. It is quite the opposite and consistent with this D over the last several years. when the D has looked good, a player like Tuck or Osi or JPP or now Ayers has won their individual battles regularly. But, we have not seen many games or seasons where the D as a whole made tons of plays.

It's not a vacuum. We have been blown out a decent number of games over the course of 3 years. This is not criticism based on one outcome. I agree, that would be misplaced.

the Rolle miss? you can see that it would have been an extremely tough catch, and the fact one of the other DB's was about to run directly in to him may have aided in taking his eye off the ball

The Prince Amukamara miss? Ok the ball sailed on bad throw and he stopped on a dime to dive for it.... not a "gimmie"

The DRC miss? Ok he had the best chance of all, but as was explained by Chris Carter on Mike&Mike next morning while he had the ball FIRST, Hilton was in better position while coming down to pull the ball towards him, while DRC's momentum made it harder to keep the ball

What were the two INTs that DBs had their hands down? I am not being sarcastic. I don't recall them.

As for the pressure, again, I saw in the first half, Ayers getting consistent pressure and having an impact on the timing. But, I saw 40+ blitzes with only 1 sack. That is extremely difficult to accomplish. I don't even think the Colts really did much to adjust. Hell, they didn't even try to run the ball to slow down the blitzing. The blitzes just never hit their mark.

and almost coming down with a big INT. He knows he should've come down with it, we know he should've, but he didn't. Hilton fought hard for the ball and managed to wrestle it away, gotta give T.Y. some credit. These receivers have some strong ass hands.

By the way, TY Hilton isn't exactly Sinorice Moss... he's a damn good player too.

TC is a proven great coach who hasn't gotten it done in two years now. Lots of reasons for that, many not in his control. I think a change will need to made this off season, similar to Andy Reid a few years ago. Very good coach, but had miserable results his last 2 years in Philly. He goes to a bad KC team and has success right away. While they did sign Smith, that team isn't really drastically different talent wise. Likewise Kelly comes in to Philly and had success right away. Again, talent level similar to what Reid had. However, he was sitting at 3-5 a year ago at this time, so we'll see how the season turns out in the second half.

In comment 11960506 Matt M. said:

Quote:

What were the two INTs that DBs had their hands down? I am not being sarcastic. I don't recall them. As for the pressure, again, I saw in the first half, Ayers getting consistent pressure and having an impact on the timing. But, I saw 40+ blitzes with only 1 sack. That is extremely difficult to accomplish. I don't even think the Colts really did much to adjust. Hell, they didn't even try to run the ball to slow down the blitzing. The blitzes just never hit their mark.

Matt, go ahead and check how many times PIT sacked Luck the week before.

Ok, fuck it.. I'll save you time. The answer is zero.

I don't think you've watched much of Andrew Luck. You can blitz on every down. He's playing the best football of any QB in this league right now. He gets the ball out and uses his legs to buy time. Bringing him down for a sack is extremely difficult to do.

It is a play we would like him to have made and I don't think it is completely unreasonable to say he should have caught it, based on the fact that he had it in his hands. But, even if he came down with that ball, it would have been the result of an outstanding effort and great play on his part. The fact that Hilton came down with was the result of an outstanding effort and great play on his part. I can't fault DRC for not coming away with the INT. You just have to credit Hilton.

For those stuck on the fact that Hilton is only 5'10", you are missing the point. DRC wasn't outjumped. Hilton made a great play as DRC was coming down.

I'm not saying Luck isn't great. Pitt didn't win because of their D; they gave up 34 points themselves. Believe me, I recognize the greatness of Luck. I do, however, have a problem with Fewell and not just for this game. i also have a problem with the gameplan. Everyone and their mother seemed to recognize it would take 30+ points to win this game, yet we come out in the same conservative gameplan that sucked up the joint against Dallas. I think both coordinators shat the bed this week.

I'm not saying Luck isn't great. Pitt didn't win because of their D; they gave up 34 points themselves. Believe me, I recognize the greatness of Luck. I do, however, have a problem with Fewell and not just for this game. i also have a problem with the gameplan. Everyone and their mother seemed to recognize it would take 30+ points to win this game, yet we come out in the same conservative gameplan that sucked up the joint against Dallas. I think both coordinators shat the bed this week.

My mistake, they sacked him twice. It was The Colts that didn't sack Ben once in that game despite their blitzing.

Luck has been sacked 14 times total in 9 games this year.

Not getting him to the turf is not necessarily an indictment on a defense. Williams had a clean shot at him and he flung it up into the air right before he went down so on the stat sheet, all you see is an incomplete pass even though the player had a free lane, had him in his grasp but didn't bring him down

coaches and make the playoffs and then lose their first playoff game by allowing the biggest comeback in playoff history, I'm pretty sure people here would be screaming bloody murder.

That's another example of living in a vacuum. Romanticize the Andy Reid move to KC if you want, but now put their results on the giants and we'd still be unhappy. Most people would say if we were the last unbeaten team like the cheifs were last year that we should win the SB. to lose the first playoff game would be unacceptable, just as it was on here in 2008.

In any event, I didn't love the offensive game plan but again. I just see a serious lack of talent. The interior of the OL can't run block, we have one WR who can make a play, without Jennings we have no RB's who can actually run effectively, pass block AND catch the football. I don't know how much McAdoo could have possibly done. No one outside of OBJ seemed capable of making a play.

That is an example of one of only a few plays where someone other than Ayers applied pressure. I don't have a problem with that play. I have a problem that there weren't more plays like that with 40+ blitzes. I liked Fewell's aggressiveness. I just don't think his defenses have been able to get consistent pressure from blitzing since he got here. That is on Fewell, not the players.

I don't think McAdoo did nearly enough to get guys in position to make plays. Yes, Parker dropping balls didn't help. But, when you keep lining up Randle or Beckham opposite Davis in apparant lock down coverage and you keep isolating that side and looking for it, that is a problem. When you know your OL isn't opening up big holes and your rookie RB is not running with the best vision, why do you keep running him into the line and why do you keep doing it in obvious running situations and formations? Why do you insist on running the ball for more than a half when not only wasn't it working, but the prior week the same opponent got lit up for 51 points, mostly from a passing game? Why do you install a WC offense that was specifically brought in to help an ailing running game and sub-par offensive line, yet still run heavily on 1st and 2nd down?

as an OC/playcaller? Is it indicative of a power struggle between McAdoo and Coughlin? I don't believe it is all on the talent.

We just disagree. Gruden highlighted a lot of the blitzes in the 1st half. Luck didn't know where they were coming from and we forced a lot of early throws that fell incomplete in addition to laying some hits on him. Realistically, that was the best I could have expected given the talent deficiency.

When the offense faltered over and over again, eventually they got going. No defense in football is going to keep the Colts quiet for 4 quarters. Just not happening.

I can agree with not getting enough pressure in other games but I'd be pretty hard pressed to think of what else we could have tried in this one. We blitzed every way imaginable. Everyone got what they wanted.. we still gave up points and yards.

I don't know, I didn't like all of the runs up the middle when they were clearly not working. I was surprised that we didn't bunch the WR's more.. the offense just looked completely broken again and it's probably a combination of things but I think being without Cruz and Jennings are the biggest reasons why.

See, I think being without Cruz and Jennings are precisely when it calls for more creativity, not less. A case in point is the fake end around. It worked beautifully. It was also about the only creative call all game. With or without Cruz and Jennings, you are facing a struggling pass defense supposedly lacking in confidence and also facing a top scoring offense. So, naturally, you want to run up the middle with a rookie who is mightily struggling, putting yourself in 3rd and long all fucking game.

Like I said, it's debatable whether or not simply bunching receivers, as Gruden kept showing, would work or not. But, there are other ways to make plays against their pressing D. What about more screens? Double moves to catch overly aggressive CBs? Bubble screens? Picks? Flooding zones? More passes to the backs and TEs in the middle of the field to force Indy to loosen up their outside coverage and/or blitzing? there was one or two drives where they showed flashes of this with success. Why would it not continue?

can be accurately criticized, but this is one really difficult season to bother given the talent deficiencies on this roster.

We simply don't have the horses to be effective, we're not even competitive on a consistent basis.

I applaud the early defensive gameplan, it took courage given the personnel on the field.

The OL and youngster growing pains are killing the offense.

It's hard to run screens or get the backs involved in the passing game when one of them can't catch and one of them is fairly slow. The biggest issue that seems to keep rearing its head is that over and over again we fail to get positive yardage on 1st and 2nd down which puts us in difficult 3rd and longs that we keep failing to convert.

I don't know how much other concepts would really work. I think Preston Parker is awful. I think Randle continues to underwhelm. You keep hearing about playing "above the X's and O's" and yet no one is doing it aside from OBJ.

When the run game is trash and isn't working, I'd like to put the ball in Eli's hands more the way IND does with Luck but the major difference is that not only is Luck a better player right now but he also has Hilton, Wayne, Moncreif (and I guess Nicks) along with 2 TE's who can catch (Fleener and Allen) and then he has Bradshaw excelling out of the backfield catching passes now. When we throw the ball I see one dangerous WR running a pattern and a decent TE... that's about it.

It's hard to place such a huge emphasis on our pass game when we simply lack weapons. I don't think much creativity is going to change that.

I disagree. This offense was put in place specifically to try to overcome a struggling OL, struggling running game, and potentially thin WR group. It was going to rely in timing more than individual matchups and reads. It was going to use the short to intermediate game in the middle of the field to set up the run and outside game. It is not being utilized to accomplish any of these things.

I thought the defense looked better against Indy than it did in games against Philly, Detroit, and Dallas despite what hte points/yard said.

I rather see him lose with that type of gameplan. If the offense could have done something in the first half and DRC makes that pick - who knows what may have happened. Luck made a lot of bad throws when he was pressured it seemed.

of time to throw, especially early on in the game. There was simply no one open.

This speaks to a lack of talent. Parker does not sniff the field on any real offense of note in the league. Guy got drilled and stopped by a D line man backed up on coverage. You think that will happen to a real NFL slot guy?

Randle is absolute garbage. He would be fine as a backup, but if the team needs him to produce and consistently win one and one match ups and make plays then it is game, set match. I would call the guy a coach killer, but he does not even flash the talent and athletic ability to fall into that category. Is he a possession guy? He makes way too many mental fuck ups to fill that role. He is a bust.

Then there is Donnell. He has flashed, but he is third string at best on the Colts.

The starting running back is a rookie and Beckham is the only guy who would produce on another strong NFL offense and he has not even played half an NFL season.

When Cruz's knee exploded so did this offense.

To blame scheme seems silly to me.

But, Hillis in 2 seasons here has at least shown the ability to pick up some nice YAC fr a RB and does well with that head of steam in the running game. Randle had a couple of grabs on slants and then they went away from that. They had no success on the outside, yet kept looking for Beckham or Randle outside against a very good CB. Where were more slants, picks, ins, etc.?

I don't blame the scheme. I blame the playcalling and gameplans.

Because the OL hasn't developed according to their projections, and injuries + inexperience have wrecked the WR and RB positions.

At some point you aren't able to overcome a general lack of talent.

Sometimes the middle of the field is just covered. The Colts know we're trying to hit on plays across the middle and that's where we were having our success. We have been bad on the deep ball this year outside the hash marks. It seemed to me their game plan was to funnel us outside and force us to make plays on the outside and we just weren't able to do it.

In comment 11960617 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

It's hard to run screens or get the backs involved in the passing game when one of them can't catch and one of them is fairly slow. The biggest issue that seems to keep rearing its head is that over and over again we fail to get positive yardage on 1st and 2nd down which puts us in difficult 3rd and longs that we keep failing to convert. I don't know how much other concepts would really work. I think Preston Parker is awful. I think Randle continues to underwhelm. You keep hearing about playing "above the X's and O's" and yet no one is doing it aside from OBJ. When the run game is trash and isn't working, I'd like to put the ball in Eli's hands more the way IND does with Luck but the major difference is that not only is Luck a better player right now but he also has Hilton, Wayne, Moncreif (and I guess Nicks) along with 2 TE's who can catch (Fleener and Allen) and then he has Bradshaw excelling out of the backfield catching passes now. When we throw the ball I see one dangerous WR running a pattern and a decent TE... that's about it. It's hard to place such a huge emphasis on our pass game when we simply lack weapons. I don't think much creativity is going to change that.

I agree that at the very bottom line, the inability to separate by Randle, Parker, and Donnell is something that can't be changed. The BIGGEST issue is that this isn't the only problem. If they could run the ball, they could mitigate the separation problem. If they could protect better, they might be able to run different plays that might get separation/isolation.

In comment 11960227 bradshaw44 said:

Quote:

In comment 11960100 Section331 said: Quote: In comment 11960047 bradshaw44 said: Quote: Pardon my misinterpretation of the down. But plenty of great DB's are great because they knock the ball down. The DB's job isn't interceptions. That's why they are judged on pass defenses.

No problem on the mistake, it's easy to make. Yes, they track passes defended, but you know what else they track? INT's. It is ludicrous to think that DB's are not evaluated on their ability to create turnovers. That is what defensive coaches preach. TO's are game-changers. Teams that win the TO battle win games by large numbers.

Yes, there are situations where DB's should just knock the ball down - long passes on 4th down or Hail Mary's that end halfs - but DB's would not be in the league very long if they refused to pick off passes.

a lot, if we get the interception and score immediately its a bit different of a game.

But as others have stated its not like he gave up on the play, far from it. Hilton just made a damn good play. DRC is all we have at corner at this point.

He never had a good handle on the ball. Watch the play. Posts like this are annoying. He is a very good player. What about Antrel Rolle just dropping an easy ball? Is it because he isn't a fighter? Please...

In comment 11960305 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

we did a lot of flooding of zones and using motion. None of it seemed to work because of the drops and eli not being as accurate as he could have been. We blitzed a lot of different ways - some with delays, some without. Frankly, I don't know if it is a design issue. I saw one blitz where McClian delayed, got to the LOS and then looked like he just shuffled his feet for awhile. On the one Luck run for a first down, Williams is in position to make a play and seemed to shy away from a direct hit. I think both coaching and execution is to blame, but i find myself struggling to even figure out where that line is crossed - because the talent looks subpar to me. Right now, we have a rookie RB with no vision and a veteran with vision who is as slow as I am. How do you coach around that? I guess we could throw 50 times, like we did. eli will get his 300 yards and we will lose games 40-24. Like arc juts said - you can't win here when we lose. If we pass 50 times and lose by 25, people will probably rip McAdoo for not even trying to run, just like Fewell gets ripped for blitzing TOO much.

We passed a lot after we were already down by 20. Our line is not good at run blocking. When I watched game again, half the time the defense has guys unblocked completely like the play wasn't executed or designed correctly. This is a game where we needed to pressure the Colts Defense and throw over and over again out of different looks and prove they can handle it. Coaches failed big time.

In comment 11960637 Shockeyisthebest80 said:

Quote:

In comment 11960617 arcarsenal said: Quote: It's hard to run screens or get the backs involved in the passing game when one of them can't catch and one of them is fairly slow. The biggest issue that seems to keep rearing its head is that over and over again we fail to get positive yardage on 1st and 2nd down which puts us in difficult 3rd and longs that we keep failing to convert. I don't know how much other concepts would really work. I think Preston Parker is awful. I think Randle continues to underwhelm. You keep hearing about playing "above the X's and O's" and yet no one is doing it aside from OBJ. When the run game is trash and isn't working, I'd like to put the ball in Eli's hands more the way IND does with Luck but the major difference is that not only is Luck a better player right now but he also has Hilton, Wayne, Moncreif (and I guess Nicks) along with 2 TE's who can catch (Fleener and Allen) and then he has Bradshaw excelling out of the backfield catching passes now. When we throw the ball I see one dangerous WR running a pattern and a decent TE... that's about it. It's hard to place such a huge emphasis on our pass game when we simply lack weapons. I don't think much creativity is going to change that. I agree that at the very bottom line, the inability to separate by Randle, Parker, and Donnell is something that can't be changed. The BIGGEST issue is that this isn't the only problem. If they could run the ball, they could mitigate the separation problem. If they could protect better, they might be able to run different plays that might get separation/isolation.

honestly that makes no sense... that is when coaching is more important than ever... if you have better players by far lining up against the other guys, coaching matters less because they just win the matchup over the lesser players... ala Megatron etc... but what other teams have a group of 3x Megatrons that can line up and just beast the opponents all game? NONE!!!!!!!!

So what then is needed? Coaching, an ability to help hide flaws, or expose opponent weakness... not line your guys up and let them not win battles over and over again... thats the stupidity and stubbornness that has pissed me off over and over again through the years... continuing to site how the Pittsburgh Steelers went bunch formation to make the Indy DB's play off and allow free releases and get easy completions while we did the exact opposite is baffling.

before he wussed and let the ball be dragged away. Should have been red flagged, but TC just never can get that thing out of his socks. Was a touchback, not a TD. Never saw such a thing before for sure. Watch the replay.

One, he wasn't down. Two, it isn't chellengable. Three, it was reviewed because it was a scoring play.

DRC played excellently on 99% of that play. But flukes happen, and due to DRC's falling and Hilton fortuitously being in the right place at the right time, he was able to come away with the ball, which resulted in a touchdown.

The idea that it's because DRC doesn't have heart or didn't "want" it is ludicrous. So he had heart and the "want" to stay with Hilton, had the heart/want to beat Hilton for positioning, had the heart/want to jump above Hilton, had the heart/want to get his hands on the pass first-- but then suddenly decided that he didn't want (or didn't have the heart) to come down with the ball?

It's one thing to be frustrated by the way the Giants have played lately...

In comment 11960122 GMANinDC said:

Quote:

Made a very interesting view of the play. He said that the wa ythat DRC came down with the ball, his momentum kept for fully securing the ball and that Hilton fell in such a flukish manner, that he was able to be in the right place when the ball starting coming out.. He said that DRC did exactly what he was suppose to do and there was no "he wanted it more" garbage in that play. It was just the way he was coming down with it..

This.

DRC was in the air with his arms extended over Hilton's body. He has no leverage there and is in a disadvantaged position to try to wrestle the ball away. It was an amazing play for him to get both of his hands on it.

I get what some people on here are saying about just knocking the ball away in a situation where going for the pick leaves a realistic possibility of giving up a catch, but that play was fluky and I cannot blame him for trying to make a big play. The team needed a spark on defense at that point as we were getting scorched.

DB simply knock the ball down in a non-Hail Mary or 4th down try? If DRC knocks the ball down instead of going for the pick, Indy can still get a FG.

That might be the weakest argument of all in criticizing the play, in a really weak argument to begin with.

In comment 11960204 Matt M. said:

Quote:

Plus, if I have to hear one more time what a great week of practice they had after a brutal loss I will lose it.

Damn right.