Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

unitaswestand

New Offensive Coordinator

84 posts in this topic

I do honestly believe that if Arians were to leave after this year that it might hamper Luck somewhat. Just from the standpoint of Luck having finally learned the entire playbook and to know all the plays, only to have to start completely over. I also think Luck has a temendous affinity for BA along with a lot of the rest of the team, and I don't think you can discount the importance of that. Part of it might be because of the tremendous success they have had this season, but I also think that the players really respond to BA's personality. Losing the intangibles may hurt the offense more than some think.

 

That said, I do not believe that losing BA would hamper Luck's overall growth. I think he is smart enough that he can learn any playbook in a short amount of time and can be successful in almost any offensive system. In the offseason, whoever the OC is, I hope they get Luck back to looking for the short easy pass more and not the long bomb. It would have been interesting to see how Luck would have been able to run the Manning offense. I think he would have been very good at it.

 

Regardless, my guess is we see BA back next year. It isn't impossible that he would get offered a head coach job somewhere, but he is pretty old to be considered a long term solution for a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all hinges on what Grigson thinks when he reviews this past year.  He'll want to make changes for sure, but I think he focuses on the O-linemen instead of the OC.  I just can't see him scrapping the OC after the successful year he has had filling in as HC and the way the players like him.  We have a super duper strong locker room right now and that's worth something.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst part about Norv Turner (from a pure coaching perspective) is that if he were OC and Pagano had some form of a relapse then he would be the one in the role as HC.

Hopefully that wouldn't happen, but it is something that would have to be considered.

Why couldn't the DC or any other coach on the team take the reins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't the DC or any other coach on the team take the reins?

They could, but Turner would have HC experience which would likely give him the edge if that were to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all hinges on what Grigson thinks when he reviews this past year.  He'll want to make changes for sure, but I think he focuses on the O-linemen instead of the OC.  I just can't see him scrapping the OC after the successful year he has had filling in as HC and the way the players like him.  We have a super duper strong locker room right now and that's worth something.

Well said GrizzColt! We do have good chemistry & good coaching here in INDY. Just add some new pieces on the line & guide Andrew through his 2nd year of development. More important than his rookie year if you ask me. Bruce will be a vital piece in winning for Jim Irsay & this great fan base. Mr. Arians isn't going anywhere. I do not let him leave; I merely sweeten the incentives pot. Generally speaking, if a person feels that their contributions are respected & highly valued they stay put. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all hinges on what Grigson thinks when he reviews this past year.  He'll want to make changes for sure, but I think he focuses on the O-linemen instead of the OC.  I just can't see him scrapping the OC after the successful year he has had filling in as HC and the way the players like him.  We have a super duper strong locker room right now and that's worth something.

This. All this talk about OC's is maddening.

We're a 9-5 team right now with a HC fighting leukemia and our OC filling in as HC. And yet, somehow, we're going to be looking for a new OC because our current one isn't good enough? This is San Francisco logic of the 5 years prior to Harbaugh, and worked wonders for Alex Smith's career. <- And just so you don't miss it, that was sarcasm.

I am not terribly concerned that many will come Arians' way for a HC gig, but I suppose that's possible. But that aside, he gets another year to build on a good season here.

One should also consider the number of players we dumped and the amount of dead cap space we had, keeping us from bringing in any considerable amount of talent. That changes next year. I'd love to see this team with some added beef on both sides of the ball. If we can retain enough of existing contributors, we should be much better come next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This. All this talk about OC's is maddening.

We're a 9-5 team right now with a HC fighting leukemia and our OC filling in as HC. And yet, somehow, we're going to be looking for a new OC because our current one isn't good enough? This is San Francisco logic of the 5 years prior to Harbaugh, and worked wonders for Alex Smith's career. <- And just so you don't miss it, that was sarcasm.

I am not terribly concerned that many will come Arians' way for a HC gig, but I suppose that's possible. But that aside, he gets another year to build on a good season here.

One should also consider the number of players we dumped and the amount of dead cap space we had, keeping us from bringing in any considerable amount of talent. That changes next year. I'd love to see this team with some added beef on both sides of the ball. If we can retain enough of existing contributors, we should be much better come next season.

 

It's a valid discussion. We talk about who we might draft, who we might get in free agency.   So why not ask who we might bring in if BA gets a head coaching job.  Would you rather have the RG3-Luck talk?   Its fun to speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="RGIII" data-cid="365222"><p>I suspect Jim Caldwell would have made it to a few Super Bowls if he had Dick LeBeau on staff with the kind of defensive personnel the Steelers have had for those runs.</p></blockquote><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="RGIII" data-cid="365222"><p>I suspect Jim Caldwell would have made it to a few Super Bowls if he had Dick LeBeau on staff with the kind of defensive personnel the Steelers have had for those runs.</p></blockquote><br /><br />I tend toa gree with you...but i cant agree on this one.<br /><br />sure BA routes take too long and he doesnt seem to adapt, he seems stubborn..maybe is his age? but cmon jim? seriously? JIIIIIIM calling plays and winning a sb doing it? NOOOOOO sir..you do not know that man

kidding aside, JC is a nice guy, who would be a better HC than OC IMO. and thats not saying much

JESUS CHRIST WHATS GOING ON WITH the quotes? can someone help me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luck is way too polite and respectful to challenge BA in his rookie year.   Just wouldn't happen.   I'm not even sure he'd do it directly in the off-season.   He might choose to sit down with Pagano first and gauge his reaction.   Pagano will have the most say about things.    

 

It has nothing to do with politeness.  No rookie with any sense would challenge his coach.  Why would he challenge him?  He's not Peyton Manning yet.  He's not ready to run an offense on his own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has nothing to do with politeness.  No rookie with any sense would challenge his coach.  Why would he challenge him?  He's not Peyton Manning yet.  He's not ready to run an offense on his own. 

 

 

At some point he needs to say we're not running a very efficient offense.   We have trouble scoring.   It does not play to Andrew's strengths.    We make it harder on ourselves than we need to.   Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.  

 

Like I said to the other poster,  Andrew won't challenge BA.   He respects him too much.   If there's an issue -- and I don't know that he thinks there is -- then he'd go to Pagano or Grigson for advice and counseling on what to do.

 

One last thought....   there are plenty of rookies who have very little sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At some point he needs to say we're not running a very efficient offense.   We have trouble scoring.   It does not play to Andrew's strengths.    We make it harder on ourselves than we need to.   Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.  

 

Like I said to the other poster,  Andrew won't challenge BA.   He respects him too much.   If there's an issue -- and I don't know that he thinks there is -- then he'd go to Pagano or Grigson for advice and counseling on what to do.

 

One last thought....   there are plenty of rookies who have very little sense...

 

Well, with fewer INTs and fumbles, you would certainly score more. 

 

My point here is that Luck is a 23 year old with with one year of experience.  If there is some sort of shift in philosophy, Luck won't be the one forcing it.  Luck needs to simply worry about refining his own game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, with fewer INTs and fumbles, you would certainly score more. 

 

My point here is that Luck is a 23 year old with with one year of experience.  If there is some sort of shift in philosophy, Luck won't be the one forcing it.  Luck needs to simply worry about refining his own game. 

 

 

Quarterbacks have input into a game plan.   I'd imagine every QB has input into every game they play.  I think no OC goes it alone and just hands out a game plan without some input from a QB.

 

Like I said,  Luck is polite, respectful and non-confrontational.   I don't see him ever making this a public issue.   Don't think it would be much of an issue behind the scenes.   I think he'll see what happens in the off-season.   Do we get a better OL that allows us to do more things on offense.   Perhaps some of what ails this offense could be cured if we could use the tandem of Allen & Fleener much more.   We'll see.   Arians has earned that.

 

But, I hope we're not having this same coversation at this point next year.   That would be greatly disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arians is 8-3 with a starting rookie QB,RB ,TE and host of other impact players. A new defensive scheme using mostly players from a total opposite defensive scheme. A horrendous O line.Yet the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base. Makes no sense :hmm:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arians is 8-3 with a starting rookie QB,RB ,TE and host of other impact players. A new defensive scheme using mostly players from a total opposite defensive scheme. A horrendous O line.Yet the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base. Makes no sense :hmm:

 

I can't stand these broad generalizations.

 

Arians gets plenty of credit for the job he's done this season. But for those -- like me -- who wish he'd adjust his gameplan and play calling to account for the bad line play, it's all about his duties as a coordinator. I can separate the two. He's been much better as a head coach this season than he has been as a play caller, in my opinion. And maybe you disagree with that and think the fault is all on the players, and that's fine. But please pay attention to what the actual criticism is rather than mischaracterizing it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are they "broad generalizations" when wins vs losses are the only things that matter? Broad generalizations could also be defined as "Arians throws the ball deep all the time", when thats not always the case. Your biggest problem with Arians is his play calling, as OC at times? Ok got it. The experts say Norv Turner is a brilliant play caller, where has that got him in Washington and now San Diego? My point is give the Colts a chance to draft a few more years and via free agency the style of players that fit the schemes. Instead of wanting to run the guy out of town in only his first year because the players don`t fit the schemes perfectly.The Colts had a legitimate shot to win that game vs the Texans last week if not for 2 illegal blocks to the back and a blocked punt. They rushed the ball well against a very good defense, particulary late in the game. A play here or there was the difference in that game, not game planning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Losing a brilliant mind like Arians would set this franchise/quarterback/offense back 50 years.  

 

No doubt.  But then again, there's always the chance we perfect the one step drop / 2 yard slant pass.  Then we are golden for a new dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't an elephant in the room that nobody is talking about. Grigson, pagano, Arians, Irsay and luck will be meeting about this during the offseason. Arians wont go WCO, but he will adjust his play calling. It's just hard to make sweeping changes during the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to see what the play calling will be like when Pagano comes back into the fold for the playoffs. I wonder how much he will decide to over rule some of Arians decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't stand these broad generalizations.

 

Arians gets plenty of credit for the job he's done this season. But for those -- like me -- who wish he'd adjust his gameplan and play calling to account for the bad line play, it's all about his duties as a coordinator. I can separate the two. He's been much better as a head coach this season than he has been as a play caller, in my opinion. And maybe you disagree with that and think the fault is all on the players, and that's fine. But please pay attention to what the actual criticism is rather than mischaracterizing it.

 

 

But what many don't understand, is that in the last few games, he_has_made_adjustments to incorporate check downs and the shorter passing game.  Say a full on WCO will complete one more pass out of ten then we are currently completing at present, but the yardage per attempt  will decrease notably. Now you have to run more plays in a drive. More plays in a drive give rookies more chances to make mistakes. Rookie mistakes in a drive are often drive killers. We have lots of rookies at skill positions.  

 

So if all of this is strictly next year and beyond everyone wants a new OC and complete playbook re-write. I get it.  Fine!  I disagree, but understand.  But his year?  No way our rookies can change to complete re-write of the playbook. won't be able to digest and learn it at an NFL caliber in time. All that can be done is what Arians is already doing. Adjust the play calling to use more of the shorter game already in the playbook, and add in a few as can be learned and executed proficiently.  And yes, he will take shots downfield because, A. our receivers were built for that and B. the defenses are giving that to us at times, and taking away the shorter routes knowing our protection for longer routes likely won't hold up.

 

We have to keep up a good mix, get a running game going, Luck has to see and use the check downs already there, minimize mistakes and get the ball downfield.  Sometimes that means converting a 3rd and long because of a mistake, but Luck has been brilliant at it until recently, as the O line has deteriorated even more.

 

So look, I get it.  People want shorter routes.  But we've doing that now, I've got tons of snapshots and all the games on my HD DVR.  Reports from some attending the recent games live said our receivers can't get separation. Not just on the long patterns either. Avery is apparently running an underneath route almost every play (though from what I've seen, T.Y might be better at it), and Ballard was out in pattern a lot, usually after a P.A. fake, occasionally a TE.  There's nothing that can cure poor O Line execution except better blocking schemes and better blocking execution, IMO, if anybody has complaints about this years game plans and play calls, then they should probably be able to offer up solutions too, in more detail than just 'use more shorter passses'.  Otherwise it is just plain whining, IMHO.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think if you look at what Marchibroda did with the Lydell Mitchell when he took over the 75 Colts and copied that type of short running and passing game that the Colts offense and Luck would thrive. Ballard could easily be the new Lydell. Mitchell was somewhat of a bust (drafted ahead of Franco Harris) until uncle Ted took over and that 75 Colt team got plenty of big chunks too (don't forget they had Roger Carr and he and Jones hooked up for a 90 yarder that season). That was before west coast offense was popularized but that offense worked and what is old could be new again. I know it's not gonna happen but it wouldn't hurt modern OC's to look back over there shoulder once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't the DC or any other coach on the team take the reins?

 

 

They could, but Turner would have HC experience which would likely give him the edge if that were to happen.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are they "broad generalizations" when wins vs losses are the only things that matter? Broad generalizations could also be defined as "Arians throws the ball deep all the time", when thats not always the case. Your biggest problem with Arians is his play calling, as OC at times? Ok got it. The experts say Norv Turner is a brilliant play caller, where has that got him in Washington and now San Diego? My point is give the Colts a chance to draft a few more years and via free agency the style of players that fit the schemes. Instead of wanting to run the guy out of town in only his first year because the players don`t fit the schemes perfectly.The Colts had a legitimate shot to win that game vs the Texans last week if not for 2 illegal blocks to the back and a blocked punt. They rushed the ball well against a very good defense, particulary late in the game. A play here or there was the difference in that game, not game planning

 

Saying "the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base" is the definition of a broad generalization. I'm critical of Arians play calling, but I think he's done an outstanding job as the interim head coach, and I've said as much. So have many other fans who don't like his play calling and gameplanning. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Wins vs. losses are NOT the only things that matter. We've won 9 games this season, but wouldn't you agree that our pass defense needs improvement? Wouldn't you agree that our pass protection is lacking? If you're going to argue that it's pointless to scrutinize the team's performance so long as we win, then we might as well stop right there. We disagree.

 

As for Norv Turner, he's well regarded as a coordinator, and widely panned as a head coach. I'd say the consensus on Norv is the opposite of how I feel about Arians. I don't know why you're bring Norv up.

 

Speaking of the Texans game, I could easily say "we would have won if not for the offensive line giving up 5 sacks," and we'd still be playing the what-if game. I've been critical of Arians' play calling in wins and losses, not because I dislike him or want him gone, or because I think he's a bad coach. I simply don't think he has adjusted sufficiently to the weaknesses of our offense, and it's as simple as that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what many don't understand, is that in the last few games, he_has_made_adjustments to incorporate check downs and the shorter passing game.  Say a full on WCO will complete one more pass out of ten then we are currently completing at present, but the yardage per attempt  will decrease notably. Now you have to run more plays in a drive. More plays in a drive give rookies more chances to make mistakes. Rookie mistakes in a drive are often drive killers. We have lots of rookies at skill positions.  

 

So if all of this is strictly next year and beyond everyone wants a new OC and complete playbook re-write. I get it.  Fine!  I disagree, but understand.  But his year?  No way our rookies can change to complete re-write of the playbook. won't be able to digest and learn it at an NFL caliber in time. All that can be done is what Arians is already doing. Adjust the play calling to use more of the shorter game already in the playbook, and add in a few as can be learned and executed proficiently.  And yes, he will take shots downfield because, A. our receivers were built for that and B. the defenses are giving that to us at times, and taking away the shorter routes knowing our protection for longer routes likely won't hold up.

 

We have to keep up a good mix, get a running game going, Luck has to see and use the check downs already there, minimize mistakes and get the ball downfield.  Sometimes that means converting a 3rd and long because of a mistake, but Luck has been brilliant at it until recently, as the O line has deteriorated even more.

 

So look, I get it.  People want shorter routes.  But we've doing that now, I've got tons of snapshots and all the games on my HD DVR.  Reports from some attending the recent games live said our receivers can't get separation. Not just on the long patterns either. Avery is apparently running an underneath route almost every play (though from what I've seen, T.Y might be better at it), and Ballard was out in pattern a lot, usually after a P.A. fake, occasionally a TE.  There's nothing that can cure poor O Line execution except better blocking schemes and better blocking execution, IMO, if anybody has complaints about this years game plans and play calls, then they should probably be able to offer up solutions too, in more detail than just 'use more shorter passses'.  Otherwise it is just plain whining, IMHO.

 

Have I just said "use more shorter passes"? Or have I described some simple adjustments that I think would help our offense be more efficient? Again, generalizing the opposing argument does the conversation no good. It's disingenuous. 

 

Another example of this is you saying everyone wants a new OC and a complete playbook re-write, or continually bringing up the WCO. I haven't said a single word about us running a WCO, at any point. I don't know why it keeps coming up, other than you trying to put me in a box. I'm not trying to promote a WCO or a coordinator who would run a WCO. I'm not trying to get rid of downfield pass attempts. I haven't said that we don't run short routes. I'm not suggesting we scrap our entire playbook. 

 

Arians has made some adjustments. (I've never said he hasn't.) One of the most notable is a decreased usage of empty backfield formations. I haven't charted it to compare, but by my eyeball, I believe we're using empty backfield less frequently, especially on third down, which is something I've been begging for all season long. Credit to Arians for that. I also think we're using fewer formations and personnel packages, although I think that's more due to the injury situation we've been dealing with at running back and tight end. Either way, I've taken notice of adjustments, and i think some of them have been good adjustments. 

 

Lastly, there are execution mistakes (which we make plenty of, to no one's surprise) and there are coaching mistakes (which -- I believe -- we also make plenty of). Execution mistakes don't excuse coaching mistakes. Just because we have an offensive line that struggles in pass protection doesn't mean we should ignore it when Arians calls plays that require sustained pass protection. As a matter of fact, recognizing that our line play is substandard ought to spur Arians to call fewer plays that require sustained pass protection. And he has, at times; I mentioned earlier less use of empty backfield. There are other examples. But my point is that the poor pass protection is, in my mind, a separate but related topic. Just saying "it's not Arians' fault that we give up so much pressure, our line sucks," doesn't cut it. Our line does suck, but it falls to Arians to account for that in his gameplanning and play calling. I would like to see him do more in that regard.

 

I would also like it if my stance on this issue wasn't mischaracterized or generalized as a dislike of or lack of respect for Bruce Arians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have I just said "use more shorter passes"? Or have I described some simple adjustments that I think would help our offense be more efficient? Again, generalizing the opposing argument does the conversation no good. It's disingenuous. 

 

What, specifically, are those adjustments, that haven't already been tried?  Let's debate the specific merits of those then.  Arians plays has been called out enough.

Another example of this is you saying everyone wants a new OC and a complete playbook re-write, or continually bringing up the WCO. I haven't said a single word about us running a WCO, at any point. I don't know why it keeps coming up, other than you trying to put me in a box. I'm not trying to promote a WCO or a coordinator who would run a WCO. I'm not trying to get rid of downfield pass attempts. I haven't said that we don't run short routes. I'm not suggesting we scrap our entire playbook. 

 

It is well documented here that is what many want. Do I have to do a search and start naming names? (I don't want to, but...)  Your post is vague enough for them to hitch their wagon to.

Arians has made some adjustments. (I've never said he hasn't.) One of the most notable is a decreased usage of empty backfield formations. I haven't charted it to compare, but by my eyeball, I believe we're using empty backfield less frequently, especially on third down, which is something I've been begging for all season long. Credit to Arians for that. I also think we're using fewer formations and personnel packages, although I think that's more due to the injury situation we've been dealing with at running back and tight end. Either way, I've taken notice of adjustments, and i think some of them have been good adjustments. 

 

I believe he adjusts, not only game to game, but within the game. especially second half.  Changes don't always work, but they are attempted.

Lastly, there are execution mistakes (which we make plenty of, to no one's surprise) and there are coaching mistakes (which -- I believe -- we also make plenty of). Execution mistakes don't excuse coaching mistakes. Just because we have an offensive line that struggles in pass protection doesn't mean we should ignore it when Arians calls plays that require sustained pass protection. As a matter of fact, recognizing that our line play is substandard ought to spur Arians to call fewer plays that require sustained pass protection. And he has, at times; I mentioned earlier less use of empty backfield. There are other examples. But my point is that the poor pass protection is, in my mind, a separate but related topic. Just saying "it's not Arians' fault that we give up so much pressure, our line sucks," doesn't cut it. Our line does suck, but it falls to Arians to account for that in his gameplanning and play calling. I would like to see him do more in that regard.

 

We are not the only team with bad O lines. Jeff Saturday just lost his job.  You can make some allowances for less protection, you can't rewrite the script. We are doing so.  I'm on board with it, a lot of other people are not.  You, I really don't know where you are. Everything you want it appears Arians is trying to get into the game plan.  But with the original starting cast, his game plan was fine.  Loss of quality personnel is making these adjustments necessary.The other team gets paid too, and paid to thwart your best efforts.  You can't, and won't win every battle. But you have to win your share.  That is especially true of the guys in the trenches.  If the D is pressing man cover taking the short shots away, then they better block long enough to let  plays the D is allowing to open up. Otherwise, you won't win enough of your share of the battles and quite likely lose the game.

I would also like it if my stance on this issue wasn't mischaracterized or generalized as a dislike of or lack of respect for Bruce Arians. 

 

If you can point out any statements where I stated you don't like or respect Arians, I'll retract that statement.  I don't think you will find a single one. Maybe I'm being mischaracterized.

 

I don't mind the play calling, we've shortened up, balanced run pass (not 15 to 55 anymore) and tried motion to create mismatches.  I feel he lacks in creativel helping the lineman block, whether a chip by a h back or RB, two TE sets that remain in, motion of a player to help against an overload, whatever.  And Luck needs to learn when to throw it away and live another play, and when to stop progressions and use the safety valve before he gets killed.  But maybe they already in the works?  Who knows. I'm patient, and while we're winning, I'm gonna be a little less vocal about things I do not like than others.  But I'll stick up for what  works, and for the changes already employed, and those upcoming.  That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested to see what the play calling will be like when Pagano comes back into the fold for the playoffs. I wonder how much he will decide to over rule some of Arians decisions?

I really don't think the HC gets into specific plays calls as much as some fans think they do and even less so when they are a defensive coach like Pagano is.  He might make the call of I want to go for it here vs. punting or kicking or something like that but I really don't think he listens to every play called and decides to overrule it or not.  Frankly there isn't enough time on the helmet radio to get the play into Andrew for that.  Again I think Pagano might make the call on if he wants them to go for it or not or something like that but I think he leaves the play calling up to Arians that's why you have an OC in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't the DC or any other coach on the team take the reins?

Well they could but Pagano did choose to hand the reigns over to Arians this time and my guess is that if we were to be in this spot again (which I pray we aren't and I think everyone here would agree on that) he would go to Turner because he has real experience being a NFL head coach something no other coach on the Colts staff has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, specifically, are those adjustments, that haven't already been tried?  Let's debate the specific merits of those then.

 

Again?

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/13655-bad-offensive-gameplan/?p=364392

 

You went on to "explain" to me the merits of a motion-based offense, as if that has anything to do with what I said.

 

It is well documented here that is what many want. Do I have to do a search and start naming names? (I don't want to, but...)  Your post is vague enough for them to hitch their wagon to.

 

My post isn't vague at all. I don't see the need to detail, line by line, every thought and feeling I have about Arians, on every occasion that I decide to vocalize my criticism of his play calling.

 

And speaking of "vague" and "generalizations," you said "everyone wants a new OC and complete playbook re-write," and then argued against a WCO. Why address that toward me? Address that toward those who want a new OC and playbook, or those who are campaigning for the WCO. By responding to me in that manner, you're setting up a straw man. YOU are presently the one hitching a wagon onto my point of view.

 

I believe he adjusts, not only game to game, but within the game. especially second half.  Changes don't always work, but they are attempted.

 

Agreed. If you want to see me talk about coaches not adjusting, go through the archives from the second half of last season.

 

We are not the only team with bad O lines. Jeff Saturday just lost his job. You can make some allowances for less protection, you can't rewrite the script. We are doing so.

 

You can make personnel adjustments, and you can also make scheme adjustments. Doing one -- or explaining why you can't do one -- doesn't excuse a failure to do the other. We can't improve personnel-wise right now; we can improve scheme-wise. 

 

I'm on board with it, a lot of other people are not.  You, I really don't know where you are. Everything you want it appears Arians is trying to get into the game plan.  

 

I guess I'm too vague for you...

 

I've acknowledged the adjustments Arians has made. I think there's room for more. Again, I've expressed much of this, in depth, in the post linked above.

 

But with the original starting cast, his game plan was fine.  Loss of quality personnel is making these adjustments necessary.

 

I disagree. For instance, I don't think even a good offensive line is helped by an overly complicated offense that uses too many (IMO) formations and personnel packages. I don't think ever think it's wise to go empty backfield on third down, etc. There are some components of Arians' offense that I just do not like, and that was true even when he was in Pittsburgh.

 

The other team gets paid too, and paid to thwart your best efforts.  You can't, and won't win every battle. But you have to win your share.  That is especially true of the guys in the trenches.  If the D is pressing man cover taking the short shots away, then they better block long enough to let  plays the D is allowing to open up. Otherwise, you won't win enough of your share of the battles and quite likely lose the game.

 

Very true.

 

If you can point out any statements where I stated you don't like or respect Arians, I'll retract that statement.  I don't think you will find a single one. Maybe I'm being mischaracterized.

 

If you have suggested that I want a new OC, or a new playbook, or the WCO, or that I think the problem is we don't run enough short routes, or that I think Arians won't make any adjustments -- and you have attributed those sentiments to me -- that qualifies as a mischaracterization of my position. If you're lumping me in with those that feel that way, same thing.

 

However, my original comment in this thread was directed at SOMD, who says "the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base." And the only reason I even responded to that is because it's not true, even among those of us who are critical of him. There's this hyper-sarcasm going on right now among those who are defensive of Arians and those who are critical of him, and it bugs me, because it turns into over-generalizations and mischaracterizations. 

 

I don't mind the play calling, we've shortened up, balanced run pass (not 15 to 55 anymore) and tried motion to create mismatches.  I feel he lacks in creativel helping the lineman block, whether a chip by a h back or RB, two TE sets that remain in, motion of a player to help against an overload, whatever.  And Luck needs to learn when to throw it away and live another play, and when to stop progressions and use the safety valve before he gets killed.  But maybe they already in the works?  Who knows. I'm patient, and while we're winning, I'm gonna be a little less vocal about things I do not like than others.  But I'll stick up for what  works, and for the changes already employed, and those upcoming.  That's all.

 

So you also think Arians' gameplan is worthy of criticism? 

 

If you're satisfied because we're winning, that's great. But like I said, my viewpoint hasn't changed just because we win. I think that's a testament to the job Arians has done as the interim head coach, and on that basis, I think there are teams that should look at him for their vacancies this offseason. But there are going to be games where we make mistakes, but still have a chance to win. There are going to be games where everything goes against us, but we still have a chance to win. That happened against the Texans. Despite all the brainfarts by the players and the 17 point deficit and the bad calls by the refs, we were still in the game. If we're going to be a real contender, we have to be able to win those games against good teams. Sometimes, even with improved personnel, our offensive line is going to be outmatched. I'd like to see our coordinator do more to make up for that mismatch. My suggestions -- specific suggestions -- are included in the post linked above. 

 

Note: I'm not saying Arians does nothing to make up for mismatches with our line. I'm saying I think he can DO MORE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't think the HC gets into specific plays calls as much as some fans think they do and even less so when they are a defensive coach like Pagano is.  He might make the call of I want to go for it here vs. punting or kicking or something like that but I really don't think he listens to every play called and decides to overrule it or not.  Frankly there isn't enough time on the helmet radio to get the play into Andrew for that.  Again I think Pagano might make the call on if he wants them to go for it or not or something like that but I think he leaves the play calling up to Arians that's why you have an OC in the first place. 

 

 

I think there are points within a game, depending on the situation where the head coach may over rule or suggest things to the offensive coordinator.  In most cases the OC will call the majority of the plays, but if the HC doesn't like how things are flowing offensively I don't see why it would not be realistic for the HC to speak with the OC and suggest he adjust some of the plays he is calling.  I could totally see Pagano getting with Arians and saying "Hey Bruce I think we may need to sprinkle in some more short stuff, they are taking the deep routes away".  I agree with you that the HC probably is not monitoring every single play, but I do think the HC does give his input during certain situations.  There have even been times in NFL games where the HC has totally take over all of the play calling from the HC.  I don't think Pagano will do that to Arians, but I do think he will make his feelings known if things are not flowing correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying "the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base" is the definition of a broad generalization. I'm critical of Arians play calling, but I think he's done an outstanding job as the interim head coach, and I've said as much. So have many other fans who don't like his play calling and gameplanning. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Wins vs. losses are NOT the only things that matter. We've won 9 games this season, but wouldn't you agree that our pass defense needs improvement? Wouldn't you agree that our pass protection is lacking? If you're going to argue that it's pointless to scrutinize the team's performance so long as we win, then we might as well stop right there. We disagree.

 

As for Norv Turner, he's well regarded as a coordinator, and widely panned as a head coach. I'd say the consensus on Norv is the opposite of how I feel about Arians. I don't know why you're bring Norv up.

 

Speaking of the Texans game, I could easily say "we would have won if not for the offensive line giving up 5 sacks," and we'd still be playing the what-if game. I've been critical of Arians' play calling in wins and losses, not because I dislike him or want him gone, or because I think he's a bad coach. I simply don't think he has adjusted sufficiently to the weaknesses of our offense, and it's as simple as that.

When a team is predicted to win maybe 5 games before the season starts and is on the cusp of a playoff birth with 9, IMO then wins are what matter most. IMO, thats what changes everything. However, it WOULD be a different arguement, IMO, if this were a Colts team of 5 years ago and how winning was expected. Its no big secret the Colts have issues, I just don`t understand the negativety at 9-5 and only in the 1st year of a basically new everything?  Norv was just an example of somebody highly regarded, a "great playcaller" who hasn`t won anything since departing Dallas. Coaches can have great gameplans and whatever but if the players dont buy into then its fruitless. The Colts seem to buy into Bruce Arians. Again, IMO, its about winning especially with what talent is on the roster and what was expected plus will give the FO time to shape their roster with their type player before passing any judgements. Agree to disagree I guess    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a team is predicted to win maybe 5 games before the season starts and is on the cusp of a playoff birth with 9, IMO then wins are what matter most. IMO, thats what changes everything. However, it WOULD be a different arguement, IMO, if this were a Colts team of 5 years ago and how winning was expected. Its no big secret the Colts have issues, I just don`t understand the negativety at 9-5 and only in the 1st year of a basically new everything?  Norv was just an example of somebody highly regarded, a "great playcaller" who hasn`t won anything since departing Dallas. Coaches can have great gameplans and whatever but if the players dont buy into then its fruitless. The Colts seem to buy into Bruce Arians. Again, IMO, its about winning especially with what talent is on the roster and what was expected plus will give the FO time to shape their roster with their type player before passing any judgements. Agree to disagree I guess    

 

I couldn't be more happy with how this season has gone to this point (figure of speech; obviously, I'd be more happy if we were 14-0). I'm thrilled with how we've responded to being doubted all offseason, the way our draft picks have turned out, the emotional response to Pagano, both before and after his illness, and so on. And Bruce Arians has done a phenomenal job of motivating his guys and getting them to ride with him, no matter what.

 

I'm not just looking for something to be negative about. I don't know what might have happened in the Texans game, for instance, if Arians did some of the things I think we should have done. They are a better team than us; we might have completely outcoached them and STILL lost. But, separate from the final outcome of the game is the story of the game, and I think that matters. I think that it's worthy of consideration, whether we win or not.

 

As for Norv, he is a good coordinator. He's helped improve several teams from an offensive standpoint, as a coordinator. But he's terrible as a head coach, and I think this is his last year in that capacity, ever. But he's proven as an offensive coordinator, and if I had to choose between him and Arians, I'd probably choose Norv. I wouldn't put Norv on my short list for coordinators, but that's not because I don't think he's a good coordinator. And that has nothing to do with how I feel about Arians. Like I said, I feel the opposite about him.

 

All I'm saying is that, while I am critical of certain aspects of Arians' coaching, I DO like him, and I DO respect him. But there are certain things that I don't like, and that's just the way things go. I don't know why people try to make things so black and white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there are points within a game, depending on the situation where the head coach may over rule or suggest things to the offensive coordinator.  In most cases the OC will call the majority of the plays, but if the HC doesn't like how things are flowing offensively I don't see why it would not be realistic for the HC to speak with the OC and suggest he adjust some of the plays he is calling.  I could totally see Pagano getting with Arians and saying "Hey Bruce I think we may need to sprinkle in some more short stuff, they are taking the deep routes away".  I agree with you that the HC probably is not monitoring every single play, but I do think the HC does give his input during certain situations.  There have even been times in NFL games where the HC has totally take over all of the play calling from the HC.  I don't think Pagano will do that to Arians, but I do think he will make his feelings known if things are not flowing correctly.

Go speak and tell him to mix it up and over ruling him and calling his own plays are two different things.  I am sure it's not just the head coach who has say in that.  Most OCs will adjust their play calling as a game goes along that's part of why they huddle with the QB when he comes off the field.  I am sure a guy like Reggie and Christensen have an input as well.  Keep in mind though teams spend all week working on a game plan that the coaches have put in together.  They aren't going to drastically alerter in the middle of a game.  Make changes and adjust as the game goes along but they aren't going drastically alerter what they spent all week working on. 

 

I also think it's important to remember that Pagano hired Arians to run his offense.  Which should probably tell people that he agrees with the way Arians runs an offense.  Let's be honest the biggest thing that people don't like in the way Arians calls a game is the number of deep passes he calls.  Arians has made it clear that's what he believes in and he isn't going to change that.  I don't think Pagnao is going to really change that a great deal.  If he didn't want those kinds of plays called he wouldn't hired Arians in the first place.  You don't hire someone to run something for you if you don't want them to run it the way they do. 

 

I think what this comes down too is that people don't like some of the play calls Arians makes and they are holding out hope Pagano will come in and change it to the way they want it called.  I wouldn't hold my breath on that.  Pagano has never called offensive plays and I don't think it's going to start now.  Again, he might look at Arians and say I want to go for it here and do it running but he's going to leave the play calling up to Arians, after all that is what he was hired to do.  All and all I think you are looking at maybe one or two of those situations a game and I don't think it's as big of an impact as some here (not saying you specifically) want it to be. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again?

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/13655-bad-offensive-gameplan/?p=364392

 

You went on to "explain" to me the merits of a motion-based offense, as if that has anything to do with what I said.

 

Because you said this- "Same thing for the pre-snap motion. There was a play in the 4th quarter on Sunday, we were backed up in our own end zone. We had big personnel in a heavy formation. We moved Allen(?) in motion from the left to the right, and ran to the right. A half second before we snapped the ball, the Texans entire front shifted in unison to the offensive right, and the back had nowhere to go. These wrinkles we use have started to tip our plays off."  I explained why and what about motion.  It's not to tip off D, but sometimes they expect it and shift correctly to account for the extra man.  As I mentioned, not everything works all the time, and the OC that does it will win every SB forever.

My post isn't vague at all. I don't see the need to detail, line by line, every thought and feeling I have about Arians, on every occasion that I decide to vocalize my criticism of his play calling.

 

And speaking of "vague" and "generalizations," you said "everyone wants a new OC and complete playbook re-write," and then argued against a WCO. Why address that toward me? Address that toward those who want a new OC and playbook, or those who are campaigning for the WCO. By responding to me in that manner, you're setting up a straw man. YOU are presently the one hitching a wagon onto my point of view.

 

What formations should we use? How often, what down and distance, and type of short pass plays should we call when (slants, ins hooks, flats etc?  That is specific.  Otherwise, to me,  it is vague generalizations, IMO. Sorry.

Agreed. If you want to see me talk about coaches not adjusting, go through the archives from the second half of last season.

 

 

You can make personnel adjustments, and you can also make scheme adjustments. Doing one -- or explaining why you can't do one -- doesn't excuse a failure to do the other. We can't improve personnel-wise right now; we can improve scheme-wise. 

 

 

I guess I'm too vague for you...

 

I've acknowledged the adjustments Arians has made. I think there's room for more. Again, I've expressed much of this, in depth, in the post linked above.

 

But we have made those adjustments.  Luck isn't always taking advantage, but outlets and safety valves are on nearly every play.  If Luck holds the ball and locks only one target #1 until it's too late, that's on Him, not Arians.  Personnel should improve. Most every team improves, all the good ones do. It's called experience and coaching. If backup come in replace starter and don't improve, they don't deserve a spot next season.  Nobody hits their peak 2 games into a season.

I disagree. For instance, I don't think even a good offensive line is helped by an overly complicated offense that uses too many (IMO) formations and personnel packages. I don't think ever think it's wise to go empty backfield on third down, etc. There are some components of Arians' offense that I just do not like, and that was true even when he was in Pittsburgh.

 

Well 5 wide is a backbone of the Air Coryell, or vertical passing attack. We use many of those concepts. The antithesis of this is the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, or horizontal passing attack.  So which one is it you want again?

Very true.

 

 

If you have suggested that I want a new OC, or a new playbook, or the WCO, or that I think the problem is we don't run enough short routes, or that I think Arians won't make any adjustments -- and you have attributed those sentiments to me -- that qualifies as a mischaracterization of my position. If you're lumping me in with those that feel that way, same thing.

 

However, my original comment in this thread was directed at SOMD, who says "the guy gets no respect for his coaching from the fan base." And the only reason I even responded to that is because it's not true, even among those of us who are critical of him. There's this hyper-sarcasm going on right now among those who are defensive of Arians and those who are critical of him, and it bugs me, because it turns into over-generalizations and mischaracterizations. 

 

I really  try hard  not get to far into that type of thing, nothing good ever comes from personalizing things.  So try to  keep it to items on the field. The more detailed, the better. :)

So you also think Arians' gameplan is worthy of criticism? 

 

Yes,  mainly identifying weak blocking issues and using motion to fill those weak spots and aloow Luck a cleaner pocket.  I also Feel Luck himself is drawing some of his own misfortune, not using his safety valves.  They are there, talk to folks who have watched film or went to live game(s).

If you're satisfied because we're winning, that's great. But like I said, my viewpoint hasn't changed just because we win. I think that's a testament to the job Arians has done as the interim head coach, and on that basis, I think there are teams that should look at him for their vacancies this offseason. But there are going to be games where we make mistakes, but still have a chance to win. There are going to be games where everything goes against us, but we still have a chance to win. That happened against the Texans. Despite all the brainfarts by the players and the 17 point deficit and the bad calls by the refs, we were still in the game. If we're going to be a real contender, we have to be able to win those games against good teams. Sometimes, even with improved personnel, our offensive line is going to be outmatched. I'd like to see our coordinator do more to make up for that mismatch. My suggestions -- specific suggestions -- are included in the post linked above. 

 

I'm satisfied with the changes we've made.  If we didn't make any, I would be high up on the soapbox too.  I am also a fan of power running and vertical attack. It was what we started with, until starters drop like flies and it became apparent  it wasn't going to work well with this personnel set. So Arians has implemented enough changes to  continue to win. And yes, I'm good with that.  If I'm not mistaken our O is well in upper half of the league, and our D is well below lower half.  Why isn't Manusky being called out?

Note: I'm not saying Arians does nothing to make up for mismatches with our line. I'm saying I think he can DO MORE. 

 

I'm hoping he can. I mention motion a pllayer to weak links (pun intended) in the line and use dual TE sets that chip before going out in pattern. And Luck looking for the check down faster if target #1 is locked down. Then see where we are at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there are points within a game, depending on the situation where the head coach may over rule or suggest things to the offensive coordinator.  In most cases the OC will call the majority of the plays, but if the HC doesn't like how things are flowing offensively I don't see why it would not be realistic for the HC to speak with the OC and suggest he adjust some of the plays he is calling.  I could totally see Pagano getting with Arians and saying "Hey Bruce I think we may need to sprinkle in some more short stuff, they are taking the deep routes away".  I agree with you that the HC probably is not monitoring every single play, but I do think the HC does give his input during certain situations.  There have even been times in NFL games where the HC has totally take over all of the play calling from the HC.  I don't think Pagano will do that to Arians, but I do think he will make his feelings known if things are not flowing correctly.

I think Pagano would too, but likely not very often.  Pagano is defense minded, and would be (and already has) inclined to talk to Manusky rather than Arians (which he has not, both of these according to an article I posted in another thread). A riddle, who hired Arians and the vertical passing attack, Irsay? Grigson? Pagano? combo of the three?  Somebody in power knew what they wanted and were getting, It's not like Arians arrives and they all go "Oh no. he's going to run our O like that?"  There's a plan in place, or we're stupid and lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go speak and tell him to mix it up and over ruling him and calling his own plays are two different things.  I am sure it's not just the head coach who has say in that.  Most OCs will adjust their play calling as a game goes along that's part of why they huddle with the QB when he comes off the field.  I am sure a guy like Reggie and Christensen have an input as well.  Keep in mind though teams spend all week working on a game plan that the coaches have put in together.  They aren't going to drastically alerter in the middle of a game.  Make changes and adjust as the game goes along but they aren't going drastically alerter what they spent all week working on. 

 

I also think it's important to remember that Pagano hired Arians to run his offense.  Which should probably tell people that he agrees with the way Arians runs an offense.  Let's be honest the biggest thing that people don't like in the way Arians calls a game is the number of deep passes he calls.  Arians has made it clear that's what he believes in and he isn't going to change that.  I don't think Pagnao is going to really change that a great deal.  If he didn't want those kinds of plays called he wouldn't hired Arians in the first place.  You don't hire someone to run something for you if you don't want them to run it the way they do. 

 

I think what this comes down too is that people don't like some of the play calls Arians makes and they are holding out hope Pagano will come in and change it to the way they want it called.  I wouldn't hold my breath on that.  Pagano has never called offensive plays and I don't think it's going to start now.  Again, he might look at Arians and say I want to go for it here and do it running but he's going to leave the play calling up to Arians, after all that is what he was hired to do.  All and all I think you are looking at maybe one or two of those situations a game and I don't think it's as big of an impact as some here (not saying you specifically) want it to be. 

 

 

 

Overall I like Arians.  My biggest complaint is that Arians can get too carried away with passing the ball and we abandon the running game when it appears to be working.  If there's an area I'd like to see Pagano affect it would be establishing more consistency between the two.  I think he did a decent job in the Houston game, although the pass blocking was beyond horrible. To me he did try to address the protection issues because I did notice some quick slants, screens, and even a play where as soon as the ball was snapped Ballard ran out into the flat to catch a quick pass but I believe Barwin batted it down.  Our linemen were just getting man handled out there by Watt and Smith.  It was hard to get much of anything done on that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a guess and obviously I do then I would have to say it was Pagano himself, Pagano was Secondary coach at the same time Arians was O Coordinator in Cleveland and that sort of hire is generally on the HC I believe. Couch was sacked 100 times in 3 years while Arians was O Coordinator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall I like Arians.  My biggest complaint is that Arians can get too carried away with passing the ball and we abandon the running game when it appears to be working.  If there's an area I'd like to see Pagano affect it would be establishing more consistency between the two.  I think he did a decent job in the Houston game, although the pass blocking was beyond horrible. To me he did try to address the protection issues because I did notice some quick slants, screens, and even a play where as soon as the ball was snapped Ballard ran out into the flat to catch a quick pass but I believe Barwin batted it down.  Our linemen were just getting man handled out there by Watt and Smith.  It was hard to get much of anything done on that day.

There was definitly adjustments made by Arians in that game

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall I like Arians.  My biggest complaint is that Arians can get too carried away with passing the ball and we abandon the running game when it appears to be working.  If there's an area I'd like to see Pagano affect it would be establishing more consistency between the two.  I think he did a decent job in the Houston game, although the pass blocking was beyond horrible. To me he did try to address the protection issues because I did notice some quick slants, screens, and even a play where as soon as the ball was snapped Ballard ran out into the flat to catch a quick pass but I believe Barwin batted it down.  Our linemen were just getting man handled out there by Watt and Smith.  It was hard to get much of anything done on that day.

I think we stayed too focused on the ground game on Sunday and it hurt us.  We had the great drive in the second half where Ballard ran it down the Texans throat and got us back in the game.  Then we got a stop and got the ball back and called two more run plays in a row that got stuffed and we ended up going three and out and punting it right back to the Texans who went on to score another field goal to make it a two score game.  We then had to go away from the run due to the score and time left. 

 

Arians has called more than his fair share of running plays this year and tends to lean on it when it proves to be working and the score allows it.  The problem is that when we have been behind most of the season requiring so many 4th quarter comebacks it means you are down and it does limit how many running plays you can call. 

 

Again I don't think Arians has been perfect but like most things when the play calling works people love it but when it doesn't work people want something else.  I really think you hit the nail on the head when you brought up the line.  I think that's the biggest problem right now with the offense.  If we fix that I do think our offense is going to to get much better.  We drafted WRs who are built to go down the field so if we can get Luck some protection and let him go down the field we are going to start hitting some homeruns.  Once we do that it'll back the secondary off some and open up more of the underneath stuff.  Also if we fix the line it'll let us start letting our tightends and backs go out in the flat and make plays without having to stay in and play pass protection on just about every play.  The other major issue has been that Luck is a rookie QB.  Like any rookie as he gets more and more experience the better he'll get.  It took Peyton really three to four years to grow into the QB we knew and loved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.