The Colts Are 2–3—and Pittsburgh Exposed Problems Indianapolis Can’t Keep Ignoring

The Indianapolis Colts did enough Sunday to keep the game competitive. They did not do enough to win it.

That distinction should concern everyone responsible for this team.

Indianapolis lost 34–22 to Pittsburgh, falling to 2–3 after an afternoon defined by unfinished offensive possessions and defensive breakdowns that turned ordinary opportunities into enormous Steelers gains.

The Colts could move the ball. They could put points on the scoreboard. But when the game demanded touchdowns, tackles and a decisive stop, Pittsburgh delivered more often.

For Shane Steichen, Chris Ballard, and the rest of the organization, that is the problem that needs an answer.

Field Goals Kept Indianapolis Close—and Left Pittsburgh in Control

Spencer Shrader made five field goals. His work helped keep Indianapolis within reach, but the volume of field-goal attempts also exposed the offense’s inability to finish.

Daniel Jones completed 24 of 44 passes for 267 yards without a touchdown pass. Jonathan Taylor managed 45 rushing yards on 15 carries.

Those numbers describe an offense that could generate some movement without consistently imposing its preferred terms on the defense.

When Taylor is limited to three yards per carry, the passing game needs to provide more than enough completions to advance the ball between the 20s. It must create touchdowns and punish the opponent for containing the run.

Indianapolis did not produce enough of either.

There is a difference between a productive drive and a successful drive. Against an opponent creating explosive touchdowns, repeatedly settling for three points leaves a team chasing the game even when the score remains close.

The Red-Zone Failure Needs Context—and Correction

The Colts scored one touchdown on three red-zone possessions Sunday.

That was a sharp departure from their earlier performance. Indianapolis entered Week 5 sixth in the NFL in red-zone touchdown rate at 75 percent and had scored touchdowns on all nine of its goal-to-go possessions.

It would be inaccurate to describe Sunday as proof that the Colts have been incapable of finishing drives all season.

It is fair to say their strength failed them in a game where they needed it most.

Steichen acknowledged responsibility for both the calls and the execution. That is appropriate. The head coach cannot separate himself from the offense’s performance when the field becomes condensed and each decision carries greater weight.

The next step must be specific. Indianapolis needs to identify why its options failed near the goal line, whether the calls matched what Pittsburgh presented, and how effectively players carried out their assignments.

Acknowledging the problem is useful. Correcting it determines whether that acknowledgment means anything.

Pittsburgh’s Biggest Plays Exposed the Defense

Jaylen Warren scored on an 80-yard reception and a 50-yard run. He finished with 188 yards from scrimmage.

Those plays gave Pittsburgh an advantage Indianapolis could not afford to surrender. While the Colts were working through drives that ended in field goals, Warren changed the scoreboard in a single snap.

Explosive touchdowns have consequences beyond the points themselves. They erase the value of earlier defensive work, alter the offense’s choices and reduce the margin for every subsequent mistake.

A defense cannot expect to win consistently when an opponent can turn a manageable play into a trip to the end zone.

My assessment is that Sunday’s defensive failure deserves more concern than the red-zone slump. The offense had demonstrated an ability to finish earlier in the season. Tackling had already emerged as an issue and returned at a damaging moment.

That makes it harder to dismiss Pittsburgh as an isolated bad afternoon.

Tackling Cannot Remain a Weekly Uncertainty

The Colts’ own postgame assessment cited eight missed tackles, based on Pro Football Focus’s evaluation, including misses on Warren’s two long touchdowns.

This was not merely a case of Aaron Rodgers making impossible throws against excellent coverage. Indianapolis failed to finish plays it had opportunities to contain.

Defensive coordinator Lou Anarumo and his staff must be judged on whether those mistakes become less frequent.

Players bear responsibility for their execution. Coaches bear responsibility for technique, preparation, assignments and deciding who can perform reliably. If a defender repeatedly struggles to finish, the response cannot end with another reminder about fundamentals.

The staff needs to determine whether the problem involves positioning, pursuit angles, tackling technique or personnel—and respond accordingly.

No scheme can fully compensate for a defense that reaches the ball and fails to bring the runner down.

Steichen Must Produce an Offense That Can Answer

Steichen’s challenge extends beyond one disappointing red-zone performance.

Indianapolis needs enough offensive flexibility to respond when Taylor is contained. That requires effective adjustments, dependable passing options and a plan that can create scoring opportunities without leaning entirely on one player.

The head coach should be evaluated on how the offense responds during difficult games. Does it find a workable counter? Does it improve after the opponent reveals its approach? Can it convert an opportunity when the score demands a touchdown?

Sunday supplied too many unsatisfactory answers.

That does not mean a 2–3 record ends the season. It means the Colts have reached a point where explanations must be accompanied by visible improvement.

Chris Ballard Cannot Be Separated From the Product

Ballard remains the general manager responsible for assembling this roster. Steichen remains the coach responsible for preparing it.

Both were retained for the 2026 season. The organization chose continuity, and that decision must be evaluated through results.

One loss does not prove that every personnel decision was wrong. But recurring weaknesses make roster construction a legitimate part of the discussion.

If the defense cannot tackle consistently, the questions reach beyond the coordinator. If the offense struggles when its featured runner is contained, the supporting personnel deserve examination alongside the calls.

Ballard should be judged on whether the team he assembled can withstand those challenges.

Fans do not need another explanation of what the roster might become. They need evidence of what it can accomplish.

The Colts Need a Response That Lasts

Indianapolis returns home to face the winless Tennessee Titans next week.

That offers a chance to get back to .500. It also creates a temptation to mistake one favorable result for a complete repair.

A victory would matter. The performance would matter too.

The Colts need to finish scoring opportunities, reduce defensive breakdowns and demonstrate that their corrections hold beyond one opponent. They need an offense capable of answering touchdowns and a defense that stops making the game harder than necessary.

Pittsburgh exposed problems Indianapolis can still address.

What the Colts cannot afford is another week in which those problems are acknowledged, explained and then repeated.