What I don't Understand about the Indy Game

[Rochardrik]

Since we're talkin about Indy, and Manning, does anybody just hate him like I do? Every time they showed a closeup of him during the game, his wrinkled up whiny face was... well wrinkled and looking like a kid who was about to cry to his mommy. Gawd, I can't stand that baby bitch!... There, I said it.

[Jeremiah W]

Don't forget Cmac.
He is still solid, but I get a feeling that he is not really back from the knee.
I couldn't tell if he was "cheating" back an extra step or if his cuts to the right were the same as his left.
His side of the field doesn't seem to be as avoided as much as in the past, I remember games where it seemed everything was to the other side of the field. Now it seems like he is being tested and will it continue until some interceptions scare people back away from him.

C Mac does have some knee issues, but I have seen enough speed and agility out of him this year to think he is healthy enough not to get beat like that. To me it looked like a blown zone coverage and poor gameplanning to not have him up on Marv giving him the jam at the line.

This is the first game this year any WR had a good day vs C Mac. He bottled up the other guys he faced and has 3 picks already, but any CB can have a bad day vs the Colts, particuarally if you are trying to cover Harrison with no type of jam or help.

[Ravenswarrior19]

His side of the field doesn't seem to be as avoided as much as in the past, I remember games where it seemed everything was to the other side of the field. Now it seems like he is being tested and will it continue until some interceptions scare people back away from him.

I'm in agreement here. Half of what makes CMac so great was QBs avoiding his side of the field. This is also what made goats out of all our #2 corners (Rolle, Baxter, everyone who played last year).

The coaches/players/etc. can say all they want about Cmac being healthy. As they say, "the eye in the sky don't lie." On Sunday, I saw a guy who couldn't run trying to compensate for a bum knee. Every other coach who looks at the game film will see that too. (Sidebar - They'll also see a safety who can't hit)

I expect to see more teams take shots at us now. I hope they don't get rewarded for doing so, but I have my doubts.

[Rxdoxx]

C Mac does have some knee issues, but I have seen enough speed and agility out of him this year to think he is healthy enough not to get beat like that. To me it looked like a blown zone coverage and poor gameplanning to not have him up on Marv giving him the jam at the line.

This is the first game this year any WR had a good day vs C Mac. He bottled up the other guys he faced and has 3 picks already, but any CB can have a bad day vs the Colts, particuarally if you are trying to cover Harrison with no type of jam or help.

Valid points.
I'm a little more focused on the bigger picture that we don't now have a shut-down corner. Not knocking CMac though, think he does a very good job, just that the fear factor is gone and more throws will come his way.
1- I'm not sure it was game planned in the opening 2 games, I think CMac's past reputation (and no exhibition film) had OCs doing things as they did in the past. Colt game could easily be changing that in the future.

Reed's strength was that he could play center field and move either way depending on what he saw. I think we saw him shading the weaker side of the field, definitely last year, and I suspect he started doing that (consciously or sub-consciously) when Washington went out and Walker came in. So CMac was on his own more, and for whatever reason(s) (knee, age,...) got his invincible rep damaged.

I'm struggling to remember/picture CMac's interceptions this year. Can only picture the one that was a deflection from a Ray hit. Nice Int. but not a reputation builder.

To me a shut-down corner means that the ball is 50-50. Half of the time the WR is going to look like the receiver, and 1/2 the time the CB is going to look like he was the target from his positioning. And half the passes are going to be incomplete because one or the other is knocking it away in defense.
That is the kind of Int that I don't remember seeing. CMac is still a good corner, but I'm now expecting to see some balls come his way, and OCs now game planning the passing game for the whole field. I'm sure he is not going to be picked on, we have far more inviting targets.
My concern is that until I see an Int or two where it was a "jump-ball", there won't be any restriction on receiver progressions in the game plan against us.

As Ravenswarrior19 just said "I expect to see more teams take shots at us now. I hope they don't get rewarded for doing so, but I have my doubts."
Exactly what I'm feeling.

[Jeremiah W]

Valid points.
I'm a little more focused on the bigger picture that we don't now have a shut-down corner. Not knocking CMac though, think he does a very good job, just that the fear factor is gone and more throws will come his way.
1- I'm not sure it was game planned in the opening 2 games, I think CMac's past reputation (and no exhibition film) had OCs doing things as they did in the past. Colt game could easily be changing that in the future.

Reed's strength was that he could play center field and move either way depending on what he saw. I think we saw him shading the weaker side of the field, definitely last year, and I suspect he started doing that (consciously or sub-consciously) when Washington went out and Walker came in. So CMac was on his own more, and for whatever reason(s) (knee, age,...) got his invincible rep damaged.

I'm struggling to remember/picture CMac's interceptions this year. Can only picture the one that was a deflection from a Ray hit. Nice Int. but not a reputation builder.

To me a shut-down corner means that the ball is 50-50. Half of the time the WR is going to look like the receiver, and 1/2 the time the CB is going to look like he was the target from his positioning. And half the passes are going to be incomplete because one or the other is knocking it away in defense.
That is the kind of Int that I don't remember seeing. CMac is still a good corner, but I'm now expecting to see some balls come his way, and OCs now game planning the passing game for the whole field. I'm sure he is not going to be picked on, we have far more inviting targets.
My concern is that until I see an Int or two where it was a "jump-ball", there won't be any restriction on receiver progressions in the game plan against us.

As Ravenswarrior19 just said "I expect to see more teams take shots at us now. I hope they don't get rewarded for doing so, but I have my doubts."
Exactly what I'm feeling.

If teams are throwing at him, it means they are not throwing at Ivy or Walker. I will take that all day and bet on C Mac to make more plays than he gives up.

I do not know why he was looking at the QB while Marv was running right by him, but it did not look like he could not run with the guy. To me it looked like he was playing a cover 2 and expected a saftey to pick him up after 20 yards or so.
The other TD was a strange looking play. What type of coverage were they playing? The way he dropped back on both of those TDs made me think there was a blown, bad call coverage, more than a physical breakdown by our best cover corner. He is very good at bump and run, I blame the coach for not telling him to do it more than I blame him for not being able to cover Marv solo with no jam. Both times looking at the QB, which is what you do in a zone coverage, but perhaps he did not play his zone coverage right. You actually still have to cover the guys in your zone, not just look at the QB and expect to catch the ball. The way he backed up at the snap, he had to expect a LB to drop and cover the slant/ hook zone and he must have had outside 3rd responsibility.

[yeahravens]

The Ravens were at risk in that game like any other offensively challenged team, if they fall behind they would face the Colt's base Cover 2 defense which is set up to make you work your way down the field (hey Rex a little tip there).

The problem with what happened Sunday was Ed Reed wasn't palying that deep safety spot for whatever reason and bit on the under route because in my opinion it looked like Trevor Pryce was about to hit Peyton Manning but got tackled by Jeff Saturday (thank you NFL refs) which should have forced Manning to throw the under route.

Regardless, that gamble if it fails put you in a position that the team could not overcome, and was stupid and maybe even selfish on Reed's part or maybe by design.

What I don't understand is why Rex Ryan doesn't see that the nicklebacks will get burned in one on one coverage keeps going to it. What about playing more Cover 2, stopping the run and keeping the offense from having to overcome a big deficit. It worked in 2000.

Furthemore on that point, we saw how tough it was for Flacco to pass on a defense with NFL speed playing Cover 2 so hopefully it was a lesson learned.

This week they signed Wheelwright from the practice squad and maybe we may see the taller recievers get more playing time to help a rookie QB feel more confident throwing into tighter coverage relying on size and strength. (man that sounded weak, but who knows)

And where the Hell is Todd Heap?

[festivus]

Maybe, but it didn't work this time and it hasn't worked in the past against Indy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the time we've played Indy very tough. Do you have something specific in mind?

Don't get me wrong. We as fans get to look back and say, it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea. It's fun! But it's not completely fair.

Don't let me get in the way of the blame-the-coaches party. Carry on!

[HoustonRaven]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the time we've played Indy very tough. Do you have something specific in mind?

Don't get me wrong. We as fans get to look back and say, it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea. It's fun! But it's not completely fair.

Don't let me get in the way of the blame-the-coaches party. Carry on!

I am pretty sure he is talking about the last three times we have played them -- two blow outs and one playoff snoozer.

Unless I am forgetting a game where we were competitive?

[festivus]

If I remember correctly, with one exception Peyton has not put up great numbers against us in the last few years. I don't feel like looking it up, but I'm not the one who raised it as a historical fact, so I don't feel like the burden is on me anyway.

Regardless, my point stands, which is that we can't play a base defense with a badly injured defensive backfield against Peyton Manning and his small army of Pro Bowl receivers. If we cannot leverage our strength - our front 7 - against their strength, we will lose.

Did we lose anyway, badly? Yes. That's the thing with risk. Sometimes it blows up in your face, but it doesn't mean it wasn't worth the roll of the dice.

[Dave Lap]

Regardless, my point stands, which is that we can't play a base defense with a badly injured defensive backfield against Peyton Manning and his small army of Pro Bowl receivers. If we cannot leverage our strength - our front 7 - against their strength, we will lose.

Did we lose anyway, badly? Yes. That's the thing with risk. Sometimes it blows up in your face, but it doesn't mean it wasn't worth the roll of the dice.

As per your points, it could also be argued that our game plan was sound but we just didn't execute our blitzes well enough-that if we did, we would have smoked 'em. I understand what you are saying. Don't agree but understand.

Let's just hope they turn it around against Miami and we can be talking about what went right next week. :)