[lex24]

Justin 101 yard pick TD

---

And Brendan Scarlett just joined him with a pick.

[lex24]

Justin 101 yard pick TD

---

And Brendan Scarlett just joined him with a pick.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, lots of articles about how Reid, who I think was drafted in the third round, was one of the steals of the draft.  He’s been doing really well in Houston.  He really could have helped us this year.

BC

---

Andrew Luck and the Colts are starting to warm up.  They are up 24-3 on Tennessee at the half.  Luck with an efficient game so far: 15/20 for 220 yards and a TD (now in the third quarter).

The colts are 4-5, with a chance to get back to .500 with a win.  A win would be their fourth in a row, and their remaining schedule is not especially daunting (the Texans at 6-3 are the toughest game left).  They would have a decent chance to make the playoffs as a wildcard if they can win today and go 4-2 or better down the stretch.

BC

---

Here’s the Reid pick six...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1064244761555435520?s=21[/tweet]

And here is a nice 68 yard Luck to Hilton TD.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/yazed_nyg/status/1064239865880035328?s=21[/tweet]

Luck almost had a TD reception on a trick play.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, lots of articles about how Reid, who I think was drafted in the third round, was one of the steals of the draft.  He’s been doing really well in Houston.  He really could have helped us this year.

BC

---

Andrew Luck and the Colts are starting to warm up.  They are up 24-3 on Tennessee at the half.  Luck with an efficient game so far: 15/20 for 220 yards and a TD (now in the third quarter).

The colts are 4-5, with a chance to get back to .500 with a win.  A win would be their fourth in a row, and their remaining schedule is not especially daunting (the Texans at 6-3 are the toughest game left).  They would have a decent chance to make the playoffs as a wildcard if they can win today and go 4-2 or better down the stretch.

BC

---

Here’s the Reid pick six...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1064244761555435520?s=21[/tweet]

And here is a nice 68 yard Luck to Hilton TD.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/yazed_nyg/status/1064239865880035328?s=21[/tweet]

Luck almost had a TD reception on a trick play.

BC

[BostonCard]

MT3 follows up with his own INT.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1064258637537767424?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

MT3 follows up with his own INT.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1064258637537767424?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Luck has now had 214 consecutive dropbacks without being sacked.  That is an amazing transformation for that hunk of Swiss cheese that used to be the Colts offensive line.  Unsurprisingly, Luck now has three touchdowns in seven consecutive games.

BC

[BostonCard]

Luck has now had 214 consecutive dropbacks without being sacked.  That is an amazing transformation for that hunk of Swiss cheese that used to be the Colts offensive line.  Unsurprisingly, Luck now has three touchdowns in seven consecutive games.

BC

[Hurlburt88]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

[Hurlburt88]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

[FarmBoy]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

[FarmBoy]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

[Phogge]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz, only two catches. Niners off, so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

[Phogge]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz, only two catches. Niners off, so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

[stupac2]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

I don't know if "too safe" is necessarily right, but the offense in Indy is definitely less focused on deep throws than it was before. This article goes into some detail about the scheme change: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/11/15...rank-reich

[stupac2]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

I don't know if "too safe" is necessarily right, but the offense in Indy is definitely less focused on deep throws than it was before. This article goes into some detail about the scheme change: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/11/15...rank-reich

[OutsiderFan]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz,  only two catches. Niners off,  so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

Thomas is now officially a bust at DE.  His only hope is to put on weight and see if he can make it as a DT. And now that they are officially on the clock right now with the #1 pick, it behooves the Niners to lose for Nick Bosa, the guy they really need, who plays the position Thomas has demonstrated he can't play in the NFL to any acceptable degree.

[OutsiderFan]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz,  only two catches. Niners off,  so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

Thomas is now officially a bust at DE.  His only hope is to put on weight and see if he can make it as a DT. And now that they are officially on the clock right now with the #1 pick, it behooves the Niners to lose for Nick Bosa, the guy they really need, who plays the position Thomas has demonstrated he can't play in the NFL to any acceptable degree.

[Phogge]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz,  only two catches. Niners off,  so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

Thomas is now officially a bust at DE.  His only hope is to put on weight and see if he can make it as a DT. And now that they are officially on the clock right now with the #1 pick, it behooves the Niners to lose for Nick Bosa, the guy they really need, who plays the position Thomas has demonstrated he can't play in the NFL to any acceptable degree.

Get set for a hit from Bobbbbbbbbbbb. He has Ultimate Faith in Stanford and for Thomas. Solly will need about 15 pounds of muscle to play in the NFL. Can be done. Expect to see Garnett gone one way or another. Needs a change of scene because beneath Shanahan's optimism they think he's soft.

[Phogge]

Pretty good week for Stanford grads except for Ertz,  only two catches. Niners off,  so Solomon gets some rest. He did not make the stat sheet vs. the Giants. Got fewer snaps. Needs to get stronger in the offseason. Garnett was in uniform, no snaps unless he was in FG protection package.

Thomas is now officially a bust at DE.  His only hope is to put on weight and see if he can make it as a DT. And now that they are officially on the clock right now with the #1 pick, it behooves the Niners to lose for Nick Bosa, the guy they really need, who plays the position Thomas has demonstrated he can't play in the NFL to any acceptable degree.

Get set for a hit from Bobbbbbbbbbbb. He has Ultimate Faith in Stanford and for Thomas. Solly will need about 15 pounds of muscle to play in the NFL. Can be done. Expect to see Garnett gone one way or another. Needs a change of scene because beneath Shanahan's optimism they think he's soft.

[BostonCard]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

It depends on the game situation.  If your team is in the lead, the last thing you want to do is risk interceptions or sacks just to get the ball down the field.  On the other hand, if you are trailing in the fourth quarter, especially by two scores, risking an interception or a sack in order to get a big gain is worth it.  Fivethirtyeight used to have a section called "gunslinger of the week"; the point was to highlight quarterbacks who take gambles when trailing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

While an interception always leads to a bad result — a QB would always prefer not to have thrown it — some are much better than others. Here’s a basic rubric by which to evaluate interceptions:

1. Was the situation appropriate for aggressive play?
   
2. Was the ball thrown downfield? Would it have at least yielded a first down if the pass were completed?
   
3. Did the pass have a fighting chance of being completed?
   

It's similar with allowing sacks, but with the caveat that sometimes a sack can happen for reasons other than aggressiveness.

BC

[BostonCard]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

It depends on the game situation.  If your team is in the lead, the last thing you want to do is risk interceptions or sacks just to get the ball down the field.  On the other hand, if you are trailing in the fourth quarter, especially by two scores, risking an interception or a sack in order to get a big gain is worth it.  Fivethirtyeight used to have a section called "gunslinger of the week"; the point was to highlight quarterbacks who take gambles when trailing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

While an interception always leads to a bad result — a QB would always prefer not to have thrown it — some are much better than others. Here’s a basic rubric by which to evaluate interceptions:

1. Was the situation appropriate for aggressive play?
   
2. Was the ball thrown downfield? Would it have at least yielded a first down if the pass were completed?
   
3. Did the pass have a fighting chance of being completed?
   

It's similar with allowing sacks, but with the caveat that sometimes a sack can happen for reasons other than aggressiveness.

BC