New Offensive Coordinator

[krunk]

There was definitly adjustments made by Arians in that game

 

 

I say we win that Houston game if we had any type of blocking. I think we could have scored 31 or more.  Waynes' TD called back, fumble on the goal line, 3 and out on the 10 yard line in the red zone. Maybe even more if our line wasn't filled with backup type players.

[Superman]

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.

 

I understand the merits of pre-snap motion. I was simply giving an example of how it can work against you, particularly if you most often use it to shift blockers to the play side. Again, I'm not suggesting we never use motion. I'm just saying that, with all the packages and formations and motions and shifts we use, the plays begin to be predictable. It may seem counter-intuitive, but fewer formations and packages and less motion would actually make the offense less predictable.

 

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.

 

Oh for heaven's sake... Do you want me to write a playbook??? I've done everything but...

 

How is it a vague generalization to say that we should reduce the number of formations and personnel packages, and be more creative with the use of motion? A vague generalization is "we need to change some things on offense." I gave four very specific tweaks we could make to our offense that I think would increase efficiency. All that's led to is a pointless explanation of pre-snap motion and a debate over whether I want Arians to switch to a WCO.

 

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.

 

Like I said, I acknowledge that we've made some. I believe there's room for more.

 

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?

 

 

Does it have to be one extreme or the other? Either the Air Coryell or its antithesis, the WCO? There's no in between? What did Manning and Moore run? What does Dirk Koetter run?

 

And again, I'm not saying we should scrap empty sets. I'm saying that, as a general rule, I don't think empty sets on third down are wise. We were going empty on third down a whole lot earlier on, and we've cut down on it a bit, especially in the red zone. And I think that's a good thing. Credit to Arians for that adjustment.

 

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. 

 

I agree.

 

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).

 

Something else we could do is add some designed quarterback runs, a bootleg or two, to loosen up the intermediate zones and remind the defense just how multiple our attack can be. Maybe we shorten up the progressions every once in a while, and tell Luck to be ready to get out and run. He's very productive in the two-minute, partially because he's always ready to take off.

 

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?

 

To the bolded, that wasn't true against the Texans. The loss isn't solely at his feet, but I think he could have done more with his gameplan to keep JJ Watt from destroying our blockers all day long. If you'd like to know specifically what I think he could have done, see my previous posts. There are specific, detailed examples. ;)

 

As for Manusky, we haven't been talking about the defense. I've been critical of him as well, but it's different. I expected Pagano to be very hands-on with the defense; this is his baby. Manusky isn't a hybrid guy, he's a 3-4 guy. The defense is an extension of Pagano, or at least was supposed to be. And given the circumstances, I think the defense has shown a lot of improvement and promise over the course of the season. That's without mentioning that our personnel on defense doesn't really suit the scheme. The defense could be better though, absolutely.

 

But as for the offense, this is Arians' baby. Not that Pagano has had nothing to do with it, but I think you'd agree that Arians has much more autonomy over the offense than Manusky has over the defense. And specifically, my concerns are that we've allowed the 4th most sacks in the league, our completion percentage is THE WORST among full-time starters, we've had the most passes batted down in the league, we're 18th in scoring, 19th in scoring efficiency (DVOA), 14th in red zone scoring, etc. Yes, we gain a lot of yards, but our offense is NOT well in the upper half of the league, not when you take all the different metrics into consideration. A lot of that falls to the players, both a lack of talent on the line and a lack of experience among the skill players. But some of that can be tracked back to Arians' gameplanning and play calling, I believe.

 

To Arians' credit -- and the credit of the players -- we're 9th ranked on third down, at 41.9%. We're 1st on fourth down, at 87.5%. That's remarkable, given the youth and inexperience. A year ago, we were at 34.6% on third down, and 36.4% on fourth down.

 

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.

 

Good thoughts.

 

Do you remember the Indy route? It's something that we've used from time to time this season, with varying success. I think it could be a bigger part of the offense. The Titans used it on us a couple weeks ago, for a first down to Kenny Britt. We could also make more of an effort to get the ball to Ballard in the passing game. It's probably too difficult to install middle screens into the offense at this point (I don't remember seeing us use any middle screens at all this season), but we can get him the ball on flat outs and such. We tried to against Houston, but the ball got knocked down by Barwin.

 

I just think there are certain elements of Arians' system that don't mesh well with our current personnel, and I think it would make sense to limit the use of those elements. There are other elements that I simply do not like, and wish we would never use. If we were starting from scratch and I could choose a coordinator, I wouldn't choose Bruce Arians. But that doesn't mean I can't/don't recognize the positives he brings to the table. And right now, given the circumstances, it's fair to say those positives outweigh the negatives. I think Arians deserves consideration for Coach of the Year. That's awesome, but that doesn't wash away the negatives entirely. And when he goes back to being just the coordinator, and he's judged just by his offensive gameplan and his play calling, some of those positives will be less apparent, and those negatives will be more glaring. As a play caller and offensive coordinator, he is what he is. And I think his faults have the potential to hold back the growth and development of the offense, long term, even when the receivers mature and the offensive line is better.

 

That's just my honest appraisal of the situation. I'm not campaigning for him to be fired or for a WCO. But if he gets a gig as a head coach, I'll be happy for him and happy for the team. Hopefully, we would hire a coordinator that runs a more efficient system.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I understand the merits of pre-snap motion. I was simply giving an example of how it can work against you, particularly if you most often use it to shift blockers to the play side. Again, I'm not suggesting we never use motion. I'm just saying that, with all the packages and formations and motions and shifts we use, the plays begin to be predictable. It may seem counter-intuitive, but fewer formations and packages and less motion would actually make the offense less predictable.

 

I don't agree, fewer formations make a play based on down and distance more predictable, yes?  How does it not?  You haven't convinced me.

Oh for heaven's sake... Do you want me to write a playbook??? I've done everything but...

 

How is it a vague generalization to say that we should reduce the number of formations and personnel packages, and be more creative with the use of motion? A vague generalization is "we need to change some things on offense." I gave four very specific tweaks we could make to our offense that I think would increase efficiency. All that's led to is a pointless explanation of pre-snap motion and a debate over whether I want Arians to switch to a WCO.

You don't mention which packages, formations and plays to eject out of the playbook.  So it is fairly general and vague in my eyes. You haven't convinced me, because you may jettison some package's and formations I feel crucial to this offense.  and there may be others I agree with. But they haven't been made clear, so I can't buy in to the deal yet.

Like I said, I acknowledge that we've made some. I believe there's room for more.

 

 

 

Does it have to be one extreme or the other? Either the Air Coryell or its antithesis, the WCO? There's no in between? What did Manning and Moore run? What does Dirk Koetter run?

 

Manning / Moore likely ran a variation of the Sam Wyche/Boomer Esiason no huddle with their own unique language (just like Bengals did), and possibly some K-gun principals  in there.  You think Luck, T.Y, Brazil, Ballard etc. can run something like that? How about the spread zone read option?  RGIII has it working, yes?  Wildcat anyone?  Run 'n Shoot? Many out there tout WCO. You have some input?  It is reported that 80 percent of NFL teams run essentially the same plays, even with 500+ page playbooks.  Similar situation on D.

 

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

And again, I'm not saying we should scrap empty sets. I'm saying that, as a general rule, I don't think empty sets on third down are wise. We were going empty on third down a whole lot earlier on, and we've cut down on it a bit, especially in the red zone. And I think that's a good thing. Credit to Arians for that adjustment.

 

See, we have adapted, and it just happens to be to your liking.  But the thing is , it not enough, right?  One thing though, when you keep climbing the mountain, eventually you go back down on the other side.  IOTW, you go from one playbook style to another as you keep adjusting and adjusting.  So what do you have when the adjusting flavor is finally to your taste?

I agree.

 

 

Something else we could do is add some designed quarterback runs, a bootleg or two, to loosen up the intermediate zones and remind the defense just how multiple our attack can be. Maybe we shorten up the progressions every once in a while, and tell Luck to be ready to get out and run. He's very productive in the two-minute, partially because he's always ready to take off.

 

Yes, and we need to clean up the interior middle of the pocket. If Luck has room to step up, he can buy enough time to make plays.  Outside edge rushers can always speed rush and even fair blocking allow QB to move enough in the pocket to avoid the sack or strip.  if someone coming in at your face at the same time, you are doomed to get hit- HARD.

To the bolded, that wasn't true against the Texans. The loss isn't solely at his feet, but I think he could have done more with his gameplan to keep JJ Watt from destroying our blockers all day long. If you'd like to know specifically what I think he could have done, see my previous posts. There are specific, detailed examples. ;)

He did, and Watt was somewhat contained when he was double teamed, but that left Smith one on one with Reitz, who got totally destroyed play after play in one on one battles.  You keep everybody in and double every one, you buy more time, but have few targets against extra defenders. It's a big catch 22.

As for Manusky, we haven't been talking about the defense. I've been critical of him as well, but it's different. I expected Pagano to be very hands-on with the defense; this is his baby. Manusky isn't a hybrid guy, he's a 3-4 guy. The defense is an extension of Pagano, or at least was supposed to be. And given the circumstances, I think the defense has shown a lot of improvement and promise over the course of the season. That's without mentioning that our personnel on defense doesn't really suit the scheme. The defense could be better though, absolutely.

 

But as for the offense, this is Arians' baby. Not that Pagano has had nothing to do with it, but I think you'd agree that Arians has much more autonomy over the offense than Manusky has over the defense. And specifically, my concerns are that we've allowed the 4th most sacks in the league, our completion percentage is THE WORST among full-time starters, we've had the most passes batted down in the league, we're 18th in scoring, 19th in scoring efficiency (DVOA), 14th in red zone scoring, etc. Yes, we gain a lot of yards, but our offense is NOT well in the upper half of the league, not when you take all the different metrics into consideration. A lot of that falls to the players, both a lack of talent on the line and a lack of experience among the skill players. But some of that can be tracked back to Arians' gameplanning and play calling, I believe.

I place more on Luck than Arians right now.  And I blame a fair amount of Lucks issues on O line, and the rest on him not dumping it off to the safety valve utilized almost every down now, in a timely fashion or at all.

To Arians' credit -- and the credit of the players -- we're 9th ranked on third down, at 41.9%. We're 1st on fourth down, at 87.5%. That's remarkable, given the youth and inexperience. A year ago, we were at 34.6% on third down, and 36.4% on fourth down.

 

 

Good thoughts.

 

Do you remember the Indy route? It's something that we've used from time to time this season, with varying success. I think it could be a bigger part of the offense. The Titans used it on us a couple weeks ago, for a first down to Kenny Britt. We could also make more of an effort to get the ball to Ballard in the passing game. It's probably too difficult to install middle screens into the offense at this point (I don't remember seeing us use any middle screens at all this season), but we can get him the ball on flat outs and such. We tried to against Houston, but the ball got knocked down by Barwin.

 

I just think there are certain elements of Arians' system that don't mesh well with our current personnel, and I think it would make sense to limit the use of those elements. There are other elements that I simply do not like, and wish we would never use. If we were starting from scratch and I could choose a coordinator, I wouldn't choose Bruce Arians. But that doesn't mean I can't/don't recognize the positives he brings to the table. And right now, given the circumstances, it's fair to say those positives outweigh the negatives. I think Arians deserves consideration for Coach of the Year. That's awesome, but that doesn't wash away the negatives entirely. And when he goes back to being just the coordinator, and he's judged just by his offensive gameplan and his play calling, some of those positives will be less apparent, and those negatives will be more glaring. As a play caller and offensive coordinator, he is what he is. And I think his faults have the potential to hold back the growth and development of the offense, long term, even when the receivers mature and the offensive line is better.

I think we will see a continued purging of players and new draft/FA's that better fit the ideas for O and D schemes will be employed. Get players for the system, not alter the system to fit the players like we've done a little of this year.

That's just my honest appraisal of the situation. I'm not campaigning for him to be fired or for a WCO. But if he gets a gig as a head coach, I'll be happy for him and happy for the team. Hopefully, we would hire a coordinator that runs a more efficient system.

My beef is you need to have a power running game to compliment Arians system, otherwise you have Luck letting it fly 55 times a game.  And if your O line is abysmal, you have a battered QB.

 

OTOH, ridding the vertical attack, reducing motion, and going to efficient short game is just rewording for a different scheme, IMO.  But you can call it what you want. However,it certainly isn't the Scheme BA and the Colts wanted the original starters to run.

 

Anyway, I find it informative to delve into these discussions, as it put perspective on a position.  I think this forum designed specifically for us to do just that, even if we don't agree, we can define and discuss. Who knows, maybe some out there are looking into their own thoughts regarding such more deeply now. Or they've all tunes it out. ;)  LOL

[Superman]

I don't agree, fewer formations make a play based on down and distance more predictable, yes?  How does it not?  You haven't convinced me.

You don't mention which packages, formations and plays to eject out of the playbook.  So it is fairly general and vague in my eyes. You haven't convinced me, because you may jettison some package's and formations I feel crucial to this offense.  and there may be others I agree with. But they haven't been made clear, so I can't buy in to the deal yet.

 

I don't have a particular problem with any specific formation or package; I just think we use too many. 

 

Using fewer formations increases your number of plays per formation. If we have four different goalline/heavy packages, and we run out of three of them, but mostly throw out of the fourth, we're giving a tip to the defense that that fourth heavy package is a pass package. We could really pare that down to two heavy packages, and balance it out. If we motion to the play side 80% of the time, we're tipping the defense that the play is going to follow the motion man.

 

If you run more plays per formation, you don't really have passing formations and running formations, because you have shown that you'll do both out of virtually every formation.

 

 

 

Manning / Moore likely ran a variation of the Sam Wyche/Boomer Esiason no huddle with their own unique language (just like Bengals did), and possibly some K-gun principals  in there.  You think Luck, T.Y, Brazil, Ballard etc. can run something like that? How about the spread zone read option?  RGIII has it working, yes?  Wildcat anyone?  Run 'n Shoot? Many out there tout WCO. You have some input?  It is reported that 80 percent of NFL teams run essentially the same plays, even with 500+ page playbooks.  Similar situation on D.

 

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

 

See, we have adapted, and it just happens to be to your liking.  But the thing is , it not enough, right?  One thing though, when you keep climbing the mountain, eventually you go back down on the other side.  IOTW, you go from one playbook style to another as you keep adjusting and adjusting.  So what do you have when the adjusting flavor is finally to your taste?

 

You'll have a hybrid offense that uses a bunch of different principles from a bunch of different systems. Of course with a 500 page playbook, you're going to have some overlap with someone else's 500 page playbook. That's okay. As I've mentioned, I simply think there are some things about Arians' offense that are low percentage, low efficiency, and put a lot of stress on a team with a rookie quarterback and a struggling offensive line. 

 

 

Yes, and we need to clean up the interior middle of the pocket. If Luck has room to step up, he can buy enough time to make plays.  Outside edge rushers can always speed rush and even fair blocking allow QB to move enough in the pocket to avoid the sack or strip.  if someone coming in at your face at the same time, you are doomed to get hit- HARD.

 

He did, and Watt was somewhat contained when he was double teamed, but that left Smith one on one with Reitz, who got totally destroyed play after play in one on one battles.  You keep everybody in and double every one, you buy more time, but have few targets against extra defenders. It's a big catch 22.

 

Balance, right? You can't go max protect every time, and you can't send everyone out every time. But on the plays that you have less protection, you ought to stress high percentage plays with route combinations that give the quarterback quick options. We've done more of that, but it could have been stressed more against the Texans, I think.

 

 

I place more on Luck than Arians right now.  And I blame a fair amount of Lucks issues on O line, and the rest on him not dumping it off to the safety valve utilized almost every down now, in a timely fashion or at all.

 

That's fair. I just don't absolve Arians of all guilt in this matter. Not that you do, but the topic is the offensive system. We can talk about the lack of execution, but that doesn't mean the coaching has been above reproach.

 

 

I think we will see a continued purging of players and new draft/FA's that better fit the ideas for O and D schemes will be employed. Get players for the system, not alter the system to fit the players like we've done a little of this year.

 

My beef is you need to have a power running game to compliment Arians system, otherwise you have Luck letting it fly 55 times a game.  And if your O line is abysmal, you have a battered QB.

 

OTOH, ridding the vertical attack, reducing motion, and going to efficient short game is just rewording for a different scheme, IMO.  But you can call it what you want. However, it certainly isn't the Scheme BA and the Colts wanted the original starters to run.

 

That's why Arians wouldn't have been my choice for offensive coordinator. It's just not my ideal system.

 

 

Anyway, I find it informative to delve into these discussions, as it put perspective on a position.  I think this forum designed specifically for us to do just that, even if we don't agree, we can define and discuss. Who knows, maybe some out there are looking into their own thoughts regarding such more deeply now. Or they've all tunes it out.  ;)  LOL

 

Probably the latter.