How about an even longer response?
So since we're breaking this down, let's not conflate separate issues. Hilton is one of the game's best, most productive receivers, he's Luck's favorite target, and his production speaks for itself. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with how he's used, but it's hard to complain when he's so effective, so let's say that Hilton's usage has been acceptable.
I disagree with the characterization of Dorsett, because I can show several instances of him being open and not getting the ball (post #2). I also can show several instances of defenses playing off coverage on him (and other receivers, so this is not meant as a defense of Dorsett), but the play sends the receiver into the strength of the defense rather than hitting him short and giving the receiver a chance to make a play with the ball in his hands.
Just because the offense has had some success doesn't mean it can't be improved in very specific ways. More on this in a minute...
I think you're mischaracterizing or maybe just misunderstanding what I'm saying, especially about Lockett. He is a great return man, and even if he didn't get opportunities as a receiver, he would be productive as a returner. That's on any team, I think. Dorsett got chances as a returner, and blew them. That's on him. I am NOT saying Lockett would be restricted to only returning, only saying that even if he didn't get good chances as a receiver, he'd still be more productive than Dorsett as a returner.
I hope you're right about Ballard and his directive, for obvious reasons.
But on Chud, I am not arguing that he can't coach at all. I've been a very vocal critic of Arians' offense (which is similar to Chud's), and I acknowledge that he's a good coach. I just don't like his offense and play calling, going back to 2012 at least.
I am saying that I don't like Chud's offensive approach (just like I've said about Arians). Considering what the offense can improve on, the first and most obvious concern is QB pressure and sacks. This offensive approach ALWAYS yields more pressure and sacks, and it's not hard to see why. It emphasizes aggressive passing concepts, stretching the field vertically, it features more deep drops than any other offensive philosophy (and one report says the Colts ran more 7 step drops than any other team in the league last season), and that necessarily leads to more QB pressure. Combine that with a playmaking, never-say-die QB who believes he can make something happen every time he drops back -- and he's almost right about that -- and add in an offensive line that struggles to pass protect, and you're going to have an often sacked QB. Luck has been hit and pressured more than any QB since 2012, and he's missed 10 games the last two years.
The second biggest concern is turnovers, and since Luck's rookie season, we've been talking about the need for him to take better care of the football. Well, an aggressive passing attack is going to lead to more interceptions, necessarily. Combine that with the increased rate of pressure, and now you have a concerning amount of QB fumbles.
My third concern is a lack of efficiency. Completion percentage, INT %, yards/attempt, YAC, etc., are typical measurements for efficiency. Luck had a strong year in 2016, but in comparison with the best passing attacks in the league, we're lacking in one way or another.
Two basic things I've said I would like our offense to do: 1) Maximize our strengths, and 2) minimize our weaknesses. We have fast and quick receivers; we should get them the ball as quickly as possible. We have a weak pass protecting OL; we shouldn't ask them to pass protect for deep drops very often. We have a mobile QB; we should roll him out and let him make plays. Our QB excels at play action, with or without a strong rushing attack; we should call more of it (to Chud's credit, he's used more play action than Pep did, from Day 1). And so on. Philosophically, we should do more of the things we're good at, less of the things we're not good at.
So after a full season in Chud's offense, when I can offer screenshots of play after play where we did silly things in the passing game, schematically, I think it's more than fair to be critical of Chud's offense. He doesn't call slants or screens, and when the defense plays off, we don't check to quick hitters, even on early downs (post #1 and 3). Just philosophically, I want the offense to do these things that lead to efficiency, take pressure off of the OL and QB, and reduce the opportunity for turnovers.
This is not born out of a desire to defend Dorsett. He has his issues, but I don't think there's any question that he hasn't been used correctly. And that's just a function of our offense not attacking defenses in what I think is the best way.
Chud has shown the ability to call great games. The first game he called was very good, and they adjusted to backup QBs that season was a good display of coaching. And I don't care which receivers get used the most. If Dorsett is the odd man out, oh well. But any group of receivers would benefit from these adjustments, IMO. And again, I've been saying this since before Chud (and Dorsett), and will continue saying it until it happens or I'm proved wrong.