Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Our Offensive Philosophy


Flash7

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a rookie QB combined with two rookie tightends and two rookie WRs is why you don't see more points out of it yet. Keep in mind our best WR is Reggie and Reggie has never been known for his speed. With that said as these guys get more playing time together the points will come. The only way you can do that though is to let them play together and that's what we are seeing now. That's why these guys staying in a game and still playing down 59 to 24. They need the learning time together that you can only get by playing together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as BA is the offensive coordinator then the Colts will consistently try to get "chunk" gains as BA calls them ( on intermediate and deep passes mostly). It has nothing to do with Luck being the QB or Luck trying to "gunsling". I'll quote you BA's words "I'm not really a West Coast offense guy". What you're suggesting offensively is not something BA believes in so to do as you suggest requires getting rid of BA . Personally, I don't give a frack about Luck's statistics and more importantly I think the more Luck plays in BA's system which requires him to frequently make more complex reads (there's no complex progression to read on a screen pass), throw more aggressive and challenging passes, the faster Luck will become the best QB in the NFL. Luck has the work habits and intelligence/memory of a Manning and the size and ability to improvise and extend play of Rothisberger. When Luck's has enough experience he will have a scary array of skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a lot of great points and the stats really back that up. I have two questions as a follow up to what you've written.

1. How much of what we are seeing is a result of Luck's spectacular play? In my opinion, Luck can make most offenses work because of his level of play, and most good QB's generally end up with their teams at the top of the offensive stats lists.

2. If Luck were in an offense that emphasised shorter passing plays, would his numbers be better? (He may have less passing yards, but also less turnovers, and a higher completion percentage.) I think it's largely Luck's level of play that account for the third down conversion percentage, and may be equal to or higher in another offensive system. But again, we may never know.

Also, to touch on the first sentance in your response, Arian's offense may have the potential to be one of the most explosive offenses in the league, but it may also lend itself to be very turnover prone. It constantly asks for the QB to make intermediate and long throws, and the completion percentages for such throws, league wide, is very low. We can't realistically expect to connect on these types of throws reguarly.

1. A lot of what we are seeing is a combination of Luck's spectacular play and the potential he has to be even better. However, imo, coaching is a very underrated (maybe forgotten is a better way to put it) aspect of the NFL. So any great O needs a great QB and a really good coach. The only exception I can think about for this is PM in the post Moore years.

2. I'm sure he would have a higher completion percentage and less TOs. However, as FJC's table shows, Luck struggled in the first half of the season the most with throws between 11-20 yards, a staple of the BA offense, but has really improved in that category in the last 5 games. So basically he is improving in what was a major area of weakness. I would have to think that BA sticking with it through Luck's struggles was a major reason for the improvement. This offensive focus is also a major reason for the Colts high 3rd down conversion rate.

Regarding BA's system, I'm not really sure what to call it. I'm actually interested to do some research about who was most influential in BA's development of offensive concepts. Let's not overlook the fact that 60% of Luck's throws have been behind the line of scrimmage or under 10 yards, showing that a major part of BAs offensive scheme is also WR screens and short routes...it's not all air it out all the time. I haven't looked league wide but I'm assume the percent of 11-20 yard throws is much higher in BAs system than the league average, which makes it seem like all the Colts do is throw down the field. One point to make here is BA has made it clear that he views getting big chunks of yards at a time as one of the main purposes of his system. Also, under BA (2007-2011), Pitt was always pretty high in completion percentage and Big Ben averaged 18 TOs/year (INTs and fumbles). Peyton averaged 17 over the same time period (obviously PM's doesn't include 2011). Based on this really generic comparison, I don't think there is an exact correlation between BA's system and higher volume of TOs, or a lower completion percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually somewhat agree with some of this, particularly with regard to the potential of the offense to be explosive. The problem I have is more about the play calling than the offensive system. Not only is the play calling often predictable, but we put a lot of stress on our substandard offensive line, requiring them to block while deep routes develop. We also call on our rookie quarterback to take a lot of shots downfield in between defenders.

It's ironic that Arians complains about his quarterback getting hit, when the play calling could very easily be adjusted to keep him out of harms' way. We can roll Luck out more, we can call more quick-hitting pass plays, and we can vary the snap count and stop tying it to receiver motion. All of those things would reduce the contact Luck takes.

The other advantage a more simplistic offense would have is that it would be more transferable to a different quarterback.

You mention that the decisions Arians is making with regard to the offense go against the current trend of adapting to your quarterback, rather than forcing him to adapt to you. I don't think the question is whether Luck can handle what Arians is giving him. The problem is that the play calling is predictable, and the pieces around Luck -- specifically the offensive line -- aren't good enough to support the play calling.

I totally agree that BA is predictable and his system puts a ton of stress on the OL and QB. Predictability isn't a problem if the execution is there...Moore and Manning put together one of the most predictable yet dominant offenses in the league. I think BA is installing his system for the long-term with the mindset that execution will improve as Luck matures and the OL improves.

I also see the point about a different O being more transferable in case Luck were to get injured but I'm not really sure how important I think that is or what BA would change if Stanton had to start. This is a valid concern, just not sure where I place it on the importance scale of the offensive system.

I can't agree that Luck/the OL aren't good enough to support the play calling. The Colts have had a ton of offensive success this year. If Luck was in his third year and the Colts had a better OL would the O be even better? Sure, but isn't that what we are looking to be in the future? Why not lay the groundwork now and not coddle everyone? For example, Luck's INTs on Sunday were by and large a result of making the correct reads but making poor throws. Brady made the correct reads and excellent throws. It's a maturity issue.

Predictability is an interesting conversation...it's 50% going to be a run or pass on sheer odds, and in today's NFL, chances are even better it will be a pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I generally agree that we ought not be predictable, I don't buy the "make it easier on the rookie with screens and slants" logic. Short passes are not easier to make in the NFL than deep ones, IMO... Route running and chemistry are more important when carving a D like Brady did to ours than throwing go routes. We have to develop more chemistry and gain more experience before we will be able to effectively "dink and dunk" when the run game is suffering. This logic doesn't apply with screens, but I'm not a big fan of overusing them, anyway. I think it'll take a year to install the playbook that plays to the strengths of our offense. I want to see more slants and timing routes when we can execute them without throwing picks, but I don't think that we are there yet. Lets hope BA can recognize when we need to diversify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Arians is he has a huge ego. He's making the offense about him rather than about what's best for the personnel he has to work with. Nobody cares whether or not "you're not a west coast guy." Make adjustments, attack the defense based off what they're throwing at you, and get over yourself.

Arians is like a "Mike Martz-lite," to me. The difference is, at least Martz actually led an all-time great offense at one point in time to justify a little bit of his ego. What has Arians done besides ride Dick Lebeau and Big Ben's coattails to a few superbowl rings? I give him credit for keeping the team together when Chuck went down, but I've never liked his offense or his play-calling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What also strikes me is that at this point in his career, Luck isn't strong at long ball throwing. He tends to put too much air on the ball. I know he has hit some nice ones, but he has missed more than he hits. But I guess the philosophy must be since they are going to run it long term, better have him start in that system right now. I am sure if they did run the West Coast offense, his numbers would be much higher.

Long term, once Luck puts more mustard on his throws, I love the attacking style of the offense. I get tired of the nickel and diming. I remember when Peyton used to run the stretch with James, it would freeze the cornerbacks long enough for Harrison to get behind them. I think we will start to see that more and more happening with the running attack getting better, the OLine getting better, and Luck getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is so refreshing to say is our OLine is HUGE!!! Look at the size of the guys across the front. And they can move people. I think Castonzo and Reitz really get a good push on their side. That is so different than when I am used to over the years with smaller, more athletic guards being knocked into the backfield. Now when we get to 3rd and 1, I expect to make it most of the time because the line is getting a great push up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is so refreshing to say is our OLine is HUGE!!! Look at the size of the guys across the front. And they can move people. I think Castonzo and Reitz really get a good push on their side. That is so different than when I am used to over the years with smaller, more athletic guards being knocked into the backfield. Now when we get to 3rd and 1, I expect to make it most of the time because the line is getting a great push up front.

Huge.. but yet Luck still gets smacked around. Basically, they're "Big for Nothing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arians system is more centered towards vertical passing. high risk high reward type of offense, and as many have stated on here we dont have to O Line for that, Arians clearly does not see that, he has got to go in my opinion, Great guy, good motivator (although Paganos cancer has more to do with the motivated play) but not a good O Coordinator or HC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge.. but yet Luck still gets smacked around. Basically, they're "Big for Nothing"

Satele is the only glaring weakness I see on the line right now. Really don't understand why he continues to get the start week in and out. Everyone else is at least serviceable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

serviceable? not exactly a compliment

Compliments are not as productive as the truth in that instance, Our O Line has been there basically serving a purpose (or at least trying with very inconsistent success to serve a purpose) serviceable is a far nicer term then I would have used in many but not all cases, there have been some good plays to made by our O line
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arians system is more centered towards vertical passing. high risk high reward type of offense, and as many have stated on here we dont have to O Line for that, Arians clearly does not see that, he has got to go in my opinion, Great guy, good motivator (although Paganos cancer has more to do with the motivated play) but not a good O Coordinator or HC

There needs to be a rule implemented where, following the game, the offensive coordinator has to suit up and take every hit that quarterback took in that game. I bet Arians would become a West Coast guy then :ref: :puke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compliments are not as productive as the truth in that instance, Our O Line has been there basically serving a purpose (or at least trying with very inconsistent success to serve a purpose) serviceable is a far nicer term then I would have used

yeah, i get that...it was a joke. reitz was god awful sunday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that BA is predictable and his system puts a ton of stress on the OL and QB. Predictability isn't a problem if the execution is there...Moore and Manning put together one of the most predictable yet dominant offenses in the league. I think BA is installing his system for the long-term with the mindset that execution will improve as Luck matures and the OL improves.

I never agreed with the idea that the Manning/Moore offense was predictable. It was simple and compact, and it centered on execution and not trickery. Maybe some of the pass plays got recognizable, but it was still super efficient. The difference is that their offense used a handful of formations, and very little motion.

The primary reason Arians' offense has become predictable is because he uses so much motion and so many formations. You only get 70 plays a game. When you split those plays between 15 different formations and personnel groupings, it's easy for trends to develop. For instance, when we use a heavy set with one receiver, two backs, and two tight ends, we're going to run. Then if we move the receiver in motion, we're probably going to run to the side that we motioned the receiver to. And when you use that formation four times a game, it becomes obvious what the plan is. On top of that, you're not using that formation enough to establish and then bust a trend for a big play.

Example: If we have two tight ends and a running back on the field, we run the ball 62% of the time. If we have two tight ends and two backs on the field, we run 84% of the time.

These trends didn't skew so strongly under the Moore/Manning offense. We ran the same plays over and over again, but you couldn't tell before the snap what play we were going to run, because we ran the majority of them out of the same four or five formations.

I also see the point about a different O being more transferable in case Luck were to get injured but I'm not really sure how important I think that is or what BA would change if Stanton had to start. This is a valid concern, just not sure where I place it on the importance scale of the offensive system.

I'm not super concerned about that. But it would be nice to know that the backup quarterback can handle the offense. I'm surprised that the starter has such a thorough grasp at this point.

I can't agree that Luck/the OL aren't good enough to support the play calling. The Colts have had a ton of offensive success this year.

We gain a lot of yards, and we're good on third down, but I don't agree that we've had a ton of offensive success. We struggle to get to 20 points every week. And as the OP stated, that's the best measure of how well an offense is playing. We managed 27 against the Jaguars, and that's with a defensive score.

Luck is fine; I'm not worried about him. But the offensive isn't good enough to support so many slow developing pass plays. It's just not. Luck routinely has to shrug pass rushers off of him in order to get the ball to receivers. Our pass protection just isn't that good. It's improving, but if the goal is to score as many points as possible, it would make sense to a) keep your quarterback clean, and b) call plays that give the receivers a better chance of actually getting the ball in their hands.

If Luck was in his third year and the Colts had a better OL would the O be even better? Sure, but isn't that what we are looking to be in the future? Why not lay the groundwork now and not coddle everyone?

Laying the groundwork is fine, but that doesn't mean asking your offensive line to do something they've proven through ten weeks they're not capable of. A handful of plays designed to go deep every game is one thing, but relying on your line to hold up as often as we do is just not advisable. We can call plays that take less time to develop, and the result will be higher percentage throws and a frustrated pass rush, and then we're set up to take a couple of shots in strategic moments.

And at the end of the day, we're going to need better linemen in order to really improve our line play. Asking these guys to do something they can't do (again, it's not Week 3; we know what we can and can't do) doesn't make them better. It hurts your production.

For example, Luck's INTs on Sunday were by and large a result of making the correct reads but making poor throws. Brady made the correct reads and excellent throws. It's a maturity issue.

Again, I disagree. The nature of Brady's throws was completely different. First of all, they have a better offensive line. Secondly, they still put a premium on getting the ball out of Brady's hands as quickly as possible.

Of course Brady is more experienced, a better quarterback, more mature, etc. But their offensive gameplan takes into consideration the fact that our pass rushers are going to beat their blockers, and with little exception, Brady was never touched.

Predictability is an interesting conversation...it's 50% going to be a run or pass on sheer odds, and in today's NFL, chances are even better it will be a pass.

All the more reason not to tip your hand with a bunch of different formations and motions that give the defense a better idea of what you're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the top 10 in the league offensive numbers are the reward part of the offense. The turnovers are the risk part of the offense. There is a gun slinging element to our offense, no doubt about it.

If I had less turnovers and less offensive yardage but more points (at least 3 more on average per game), I will take that any day. I'd rather be 21st in yardage and 4th in points per game than 4th in yardage in the league and 21st in points per game. There needs to be a happy medium found - maybe 12th in yardage and 10th in points per game??? :)

Big Ben's situation was different, he had the lowest QB rating of a QB in a SB, he went to a team with a mature defense that could get the ball to him enough times. So Luck cant afford the same level of turnovers that Big Ben could, IMO; nor can he afford to take those kind of hits which are bound to happen more when longer developing routes take place. I dont want Luck to be a Big Ben, I want him to be an Aaron Rodgers. The ball has to come out quick while Luck is in the pocket, more often than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the top 10 in the league offensive numbers are the reward part of the offense. The turnovers are the risk part of the offense. There is a gun slinging element to our offense, no doubt about it.

If I had less turnovers and less offensive yardage but more points (at least 3 more on average per game), I will take that any day. I'd rather be 21st in yardage and 4th in points per game than 4th in yardage in the league and 21st in points per game. There needs to be a happy medium found - maybe 12th in yardage and 10th in points per game??? :)

Bingo.

Big Ben's situation was different, he had the lowest QB rating of a QB in a SB, he went to a team with a mature defense that could get the ball to him enough times. So Luck cant afford the same level of turnovers that Big Ben could, IMO; nor can he afford to take those kind of hits which are bound to happen more when longer developing routes take place. I dont want Luck to be a Big Ben, I want him to be an Aaron Rodgers. The ball has to come out quick while Luck is in the pocket, more often than not.

Would you take a hybrid of the two?

Thing is, both of them have had issues at times with holding on to the ball too long. Luck has had that problem a few times this year, but more troubling is that he hasn't really had quick outlets and dumpoffs to relieve the pressure. There are too many pass plays we run with no hot read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, both of them have had issues at times with holding on to the ball too long. Luck has had that problem a few times this year, but more troubling is that he hasn't really had quick outlets and dumpoffs to relieve the pressure. There are too many pass plays we run with no hot read.

Yep. That is why I feel our RBs need to be more involved in the passing game or spacing of our WRs while running routes should be fine tuned. That is where they miss Collie big time, awareness of hot reads underneath while having single coverage. Because of our O-line and injury to Fleener, Allen is mostly protecting Luck than out in the flat if a long route has to develop. So, I'd say, let the RB protect and let Allen run more often. If the RB gives you time by protecting well, Luck can get the farther yardage and if not, Allen is the dumpoff.

It is time to let one of our TEs be flankers more than play close to the line of scrimmage, that will reduce the yardage but will give Luck less pressure to throw farther down the field into coverage in a critical situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which coaches even Run a West Coast Offense?? Besides the coaches on the West Coast? lol

Most schemes are heavily influenced by WCO concepts and at this point I'd argue that a majority of offensive coaches in the league have ties to the Walsh tree. Off the top of my head the current list of offensive-minded head coaches who run a variation of it includes Mike Shanahan, Gary Kubiak, Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy, Jim Harbaugh, and Pat Shurmur. There's a lot of variety between all of those guys, though, which speaks to just how much the game has evolved since Walsh came along.

Offenses that are more vertically oriented are a bit of a throwback in today's day and age and hearken back to pre-Walsh football. That was mostly run-to-set-up-the-pass, grind it out on the ground then make them pay deep football. More modern iterations of that style of play have certainly been successful but not without that strong rushing element. The bottom line is that you still need to make use of the whole field on offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Colts offense is fun and exciting when things are clicking on all cylinders. But, it doesn't produce many points, and essentially, that's what really matters.

I find myself thinking that it's great that Luck is allowed to be "gunslinger" and take intermediate and deep shots, but is it an effective philosophy overall? After watching Brady and his execution of his offense, with primarily short slants and crossing routes to his playmaking receivers, I ask myself, what if our offense was more efficient like theirs? Don't we have playmakers that can take a slant and use their speed and elusiveness to turn a short pass into a large gain, (Hilton, Brazill, Avery)?

Where are the screens?

Why do we ask a rookie to carry so much of the responsibility to run this type of offense?

Is this offense playing to Luck's strengths?

Where are the designed roll-out for our mobile and accurate QB?

We've already discussed why Luck has a low completion percentage, (many factors). Yes, he has good stats relative to how many yards he's thrown, but his overall effectiveness has been limited by this offense. I think by adding more plays designed for efficiency to our existing playbook would go a long way in helping our overall offense, including our O-line, Luck and limiting turnovers and not having to carry so much of the burden of the offense; and our receivers.

Your thoughts on our offensive philosophy-- which emphasizes deep passes?

I l think our coach is developing an explosive offense with our speed receivers, I for one like what he is doing going deep, it will come together as this group plays together more and our running game gets better
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fond of it.

When Polian/Caldwell were fired, I wanted a coach with a West Coast background and that was the same thought whether 18 remained in place or not. With Luck running a version of it in college it made even more sense to bring in someone well-versed it to continue his growth. It would be somewhat similar to what Shanahan did with RGIII and the Baylor offense, utilizing some of the concepts, to make his move to the pros similar. Tannehill, is running the same exact offense that he ran at A&M so that has helped him transition to the pro gram. Obviously Luck will grow in this system, but even then I'm not sold on this system being that solid.

It's risk reward, and I'm certain that if we had hired a WCO coach as opposed to Arians, then I believe we would have more points, possibly more wins and Luck's #'s would look more favorable.

The passing concepts that Arians is using is bordering on the Run & Shoot with the longer passing routes that take time to develop, and I just feel that he could have put Luck in a much better situation at various times.

Screens/roll-outs/etc are all phases that seem to be missing. 6-4 is 6-4, and nearly 300 yards a game is nearly 300 yards a game but I think Luck would have been better off today and in the future with a WCO. There is also no question that the QB2 would be better off with that system in place if something should happen to Luck.

Yet we will just have to deal with Arians and his predictable tendencies, his hard-headedeness and his higher risk offense unless someone makes him an offer at OC, then I could see the team making the mistake of promoting Clyde Christensen who would likely install concepts from the Arians offense and the Manning/Moore offense which would be an even bigger mistake.

isnt the run and shoot based on a lot of option routes..and i mean a lot? i dont see that many option routes or am i wrong?

questionj aside... i DO NOT WANT CLYDE...but why would it be bad to have a Manning/moore type of offense? i think it suites luck. Cerebral check with me type of offense with a lot of short-intermeidate throws to keep in a rhytm and some well calculated deep shots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that fond of it.

When Polian/Caldwell were fired, I wanted a coach with a West Coast background and that was the same thought whether 18 remained in place or not. With Luck running a version of it in college it made even more sense to bring in someone well-versed it to continue his growth. It would be somewhat similar to what Shanahan did with RGIII and the Baylor offense, utilizing some of the concepts, to make his move to the pros similar. Tannehill, is running the same exact offense that he ran at A&M so that has helped him transition to the pro gram. Obviously Luck will grow in this system, but even then I'm not sold on this system being that solid.

It's risk reward, and I'm certain that if we had hired a WCO coach as opposed to Arians, then I believe we would have more points, possibly more wins and Luck's #'s would look more favorable.

The passing concepts that Arians is using is bordering on the Run & Shoot with the longer passing routes that take time to develop, and I just feel that he could have put Luck in a much better situation at various times.

Screens/roll-outs/etc are all phases that seem to be missing. 6-4 is 6-4, and nearly 300 yards a game is nearly 300 yards a game but I think Luck would have been better off today and in the future with a WCO. There is also no question that the QB2 would be better off with that system in place if something should happen to Luck.

Yet we will just have to deal with Arians and his predictable tendencies, his hard-headedeness and his higher risk offense unless someone makes him an offer at OC, then I could see the team making the mistake of promoting Clyde Christensen who would likely install concepts from the Arians offense and the Manning/Moore offense which would be an even bigger mistake.

I don't know about you, but I want the guy with the superbowl rings running my offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the top 10 in the league offensive numbers are the reward part of the offense. The turnovers are the risk part of the offense. There is a gun slinging element to our offense, no doubt about it.

If I had less turnovers and less offensive yardage but more points (at least 3 more on average per game), I will take that any day. I'd rather be 21st in yardage and 4th in points per game than 4th in yardage in the league and 21st in points per game. There needs to be a happy medium found - maybe 12th in yardage and 10th in points per game??? :)

To a degree that may be true, but I'm not sure we can pin the turnovers entirely on the philosophy. It's a little more complicated than that. There are many other factors to consider. Also, it's not only turnovers. They're self destructing in other ways and simply not finishing drives. Put it this way: I don't see the lack of points as some sort of counterintuitive effect of overaggressiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt the run and shoot based on a lot of option routes..and i mean a lot? i dont see that many option routes or am i wrong?

questionj aside... i DO NOT WANT CLYDE...but why would it be bad to have a Manning/moore type of offense? i think it suites luck. Cerebral check with me type of offense with a lot of short-intermeidate throws to keep in a rhytm and some well calculated deep shots

I was specifically about the length of the routes. Some R&S have tons of option routes built in and some are fairly simple.

Nobody is here to teach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt the run and shoot based on a lot of option routes..and i mean a lot? i dont see that many option routes or am i wrong?

questionj aside... i DO NOT WANT CLYDE...but why would it be bad to have a Manning/moore type of offense? i think it suites luck. Cerebral check with me type of offense with a lot of short-intermeidate throws to keep in a rhytm and some well calculated deep shots

The modern day run-n-shoot has a lot more short to intermediate passes in it. Arians' route combinations definitely have elements of the old run-n-shoot, but without the option routes. It's basically a dumbed down run-n-shoot, except without the ability for the QB and receivers to adjust on the fly (the main element that made the run-n-shoot so dangerous.)

I don't really have a problem running an offense featuring a vertical passing attack. The Saints run a vertical offensive system as well, and have much success with it. The difference with them is, they don't stubbornly stick to the script when the deep ball isn't there, just for the sake of proving a point. They still have plenty of designed hot reads, screens and draws to neutralize the pass rush. They wait for the big play to develop, as opposed to forcing it like Arians does.

I don't know if it's Arians stubbornness that causes him to call games the way he does, or is it his impatience? Sometimes it seems like he views having to alter a gameplan as some sort of admission that his scheme isn't perfect. Other times it seems like when things aren't clicking, he gets impatient and tries to get everything back on one play. Whatever his complex is, it's seriously hindering him from ever becoming a good coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modern day run-n-shoot has a lot more short to intermediate passes in it. Arians' route combinations definitely have elements of the old run-n-shoot, but without the option routes. It's basically a dumbed down run-n-shoot, except without the ability for the QB and receivers to adjust on the fly (the main element that made the run-n-shoot so dangerous.)

I don't really have a problem running an offense featuring a vertical passing attack. The Saints run a vertical offensive system as well, and have much success with it. The difference with them is, they don't stubbornly stick to the script when the deep ball isn't there, just for the sake of proving a point. They still have plenty of designed hot reads, screens and draws to neutralize the pass rush. They wait for the big play to develop, as opposed to forcing it like Arians does.

I don't know if it's Arians stubbornness that causes him to call games the way he does, or is it his impatience? Sometimes it seems like he views having to alter a gameplan as some sort of admission that his scheme isn't perfect. Other times it seems like when things aren't clicking, he gets impatient and tries to get everything back on one play. Whatever his complex is, it's seriously hindering him from ever becoming a good coach.

how do you feel about Pete Carmichael? i know he was interviewed here for HC but if Bruce were to leave for a HC, i was thinking of him or greg roman to come here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do you feel about Pete Carmichael? i know he was interviewed here for HC but if Bruce were to leave for a HC, i was thinking of him or greg roman to come here

I don't see Carhmichael leaving the Saints for a lateral position. Even if Payton goes to Dallas, I could see Carmichael inline to stay with Brees. Roman. With Roman it would also be a lateral move. I could see how he would like to work with Luck again, but if he's under contract it would basically take a HC job to break it. I don't think that a trumped up OC/Asst. Head Coach title would be sufficient to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the top 10 in the league offensive numbers are the reward part of the offense. The turnovers are the risk part of the offense. There is a gun slinging element to our offense, no doubt about it.

If I had less turnovers and less offensive yardage but more points (at least 3 more on average per game), I will take that any day. I'd rather be 21st in yardage and 4th in points per game than 4th in yardage in the league and 21st in points per game. There needs to be a happy medium found - maybe 12th in yardage and 10th in points per game??? :)

Big Ben's situation was different, he had the lowest QB rating of a QB in a SB, he went to a team with a mature defense that could get the ball to him enough times. So Luck cant afford the same level of turnovers that Big Ben could, IMO; nor can he afford to take those kind of hits which are bound to happen more when longer developing routes take place. I dont want Luck to be a Big Ben, I want him to be an Aaron Rodgers. The ball has to come out quick while Luck is in the pocket, more often than not.

arians wasn't the oc when the steelers won their first super bowl with big ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...