Clyde Christensen

[Superman]

And yes, rollouts, bootlegs, etc... we've been clamoring for those all year. Not in Bruce's playbook, apparently

 

Thing is that Arians' offense uses more man blocking in the run game, rather than zone blocking, and that changes the look of a play action fake, and it makes it harder to call designed rollouts/bootlegs. They're just not as effective.

[YOUR GM]

Thing is that Arians' offense uses more man blocking in the run game, rather than zone blocking, and that changes the look of a play action fake, and it makes it harder to call designed rollouts/bootlegs. They're just not as effective.

 

Well, now that I think about it, on a key 3rd and short conversion, we had Avery motion to a fake sweep left,  then rolled Luck to his right where he hit Ballard in the flat. Something as simple as doing more of that even helps. You're right about bootlegs though. It's hard to run those without having the stretch run as a staple in your arsenal. 

[Dudley Smith]

I thought Christensen did a better job of helping Luck get rid of the ball quickly, relying more heavily on route combinations that had hot options, etc. This met with mixed results. Also, this very well could have been the game Arians' would have called; there's nothing in the gameplan that Arians didn't put there. The play calling was influenced, for sure, but this was Arians' gameplan.

 

What I hated, though, was the empty backfield on third down. Arians had been doing less of that over the past couple months, and again it's hard to tell what Arians would have done differently in certain situations. But I HATE empty backfield on third down, and we did it over and over again in this game, third and short, third and medium, third and long.

 

This offense, regardless of who is calling the plays, is still missing some crucial concepts that I think a good pro offense should have. For one, the offense relies on protection to be effective, and when protection breaks down, it asks the quarterback to make things happen. Our protection breaks down all the time, and the offense doesn't do most of the things that can take pressure off of the line and the quarterback, like including the backs in the passing game.

 

The route combinations feature concepts that stress a defense vertically and then underneath. (Unlike what people keep saying, the problem isn't that the receivers are always 20 yards downfield, it's that the underneath options rely on the deep routes to clear coverage. The underneath options are rarely primary options, they're most often crossing routes that still take time to develop.) This is a dangerous offense, as we've shown all season with big plays and lots of yardage. But it's not terribly efficient, and that's not just because we have a rookie quarterback and a bunch of rookie receivers. Roethlisberger has never been an efficient quarterback, even at his best. Philip Rivers' efficiency has deteriorated over the past two seasons, and before then, it relied heavily on big receivers making plays over defenders (very similar offense to ours). Both teams struggle to protect their quarterbacks.

 

Arians and his offense have a lot of positives. The team and fanbase should be exceedingly grateful that he was around this season, because he helped Luck and did a great job filling in while Pagano was out. But I don't think his offense is the long term answer for our team. I wouldn't be in favor of us getting rid of him, but given how strong he was as the top guy, I think he deserves a head coaching gig. And selfishly, since I think we need an offense that does more to stress efficiency, I hope he gets one.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you said here. I actually thought CC called a decent game yesterday-- not good or bad-- decent. And Luck's stat line was actually the best it has been in about a month with all of the short passes. But we didn't get a single TD. Winning is more important than Luck's completion percentage.

 

People have knocked BA all year long over the long pass plays. I just thought it was silly that now we are saying we need the long pass plays to be competitve when people were clamoring for shorter passes. That's all. I think BA has been beneficial for Luck this season, and I certainly would rather have BA than CC as the OC for Luck to have for the next few seasons. But I agree, there are better options than either out there. But like you said, BA isn't going anywhere unless he takes a HC position.

 

Regardless of who the OC is next year, fixing up this O-line in the offseason will make Luck and whatever offense we have much more efficient right off the bat.

[Superman]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you said here. I actually thought CC called a decent game yesterday-- not good or bad-- decent. And Luck's stat line was actually the best it has been in about a month with all of the short passes. But we didn't get a single TD. Winning is more important than Luck's completion percentage.

 

People have knocked BA all year long over the long pass plays. I just thought it was silly that now we are saying we need the long pass plays to be competitve when people were clamoring for shorter passes. That's all. I think BA has been beneficial for Luck this season, and I certainly would rather have BA than CC as the OC for Luck to have for the next few seasons. But I agree, there are better options than either out there. But like you said, BA isn't going anywhere unless he takes a HC position.

 

Regardless of who the OC is next year, fixing up this O-line in the offseason will make Luck and whatever offense we have much more efficient right off the bat.

 

To the bolded, that's true of any quarterback and any offense, isn't it? We need to improve our line play regardless of what system we run. The difference is that Arians' system relies on good protection, and does little to make up for deficient protection. Winning is most important, but doesn't helping your quarterback complete more passes improve your chances of winning?

 

I thought Luck and Christensen were more conservative yesterday in an effort to avoid turnovers, not because they were ignoring vertical options. In fact, Luck threw downfield several times. There just wasn't a lot of separation back there, and Luck was under constant duress.

[Warhorse]

Bruce is quite aware of our O-line limitations. Those chuck plays is the one way he can get the crowded box out of Lucks grill. CC has not shown over time the propensity to use those, but today's drops and last years QB's did not really give him that opportunity.

 

Rest assured, if BA is the O coach next season, and we assemble an oline that can get 4.5 to 5 yards and a cloud of dust on fist down, he'll do that as often as is needed but not enough create a pattern. He is an extremely bright OC, IMO.

[Superman]

Bruce is quite aware of our O-line limitations. Those chuck plays is the one way he can get the crowded box out of Lucks grill.

 

Not if the defense is blitzing, and Luck is only completing 54% of his passes.

 

The best way to slow down a blitz is by completing high percentage pass plays.

[Dudley Smith]

To the bolded, that's true of any quarterback and any offense, isn't it? We need to improve our line play regardless of what system we run. The difference is that Arians' system relies on good protection, and does little to make up for deficient protection. Winning is most important, but doesn't helping your quarterback complete more passes improve your chances of winning?

 

I thought Luck and Christensen were more conservative yesterday in an effort to avoid turnovers, not because they were ignoring vertical options. In fact, Luck threw downfield several times. There just wasn't a lot of separation back there, and Luck was under constant duress.

 

It's true of every QB/offense to an extent. But certainly not to the extent of our team, with its horrifyingly abysmal offensive line.

 

I'm not saying that the short passes for more completions approach over the chunk play approach is necessarily the wrong call for this team. In fact, I was pretty neutral yesterday over the change. Had we won and Luck had a 65% for 2 TDs then I would lean towards being conservative with the shorter passes. I am just not sure which approach is truly better, but I know we have won 11 games with the chunk play approach.

 

However, I will say that I thought Luck actually looked more comfortable throwing the quick hits yesterday. I am not sure if that was just my imagination or not, but he looked more decisive to me and seemed to be putting more zip on the ball. This is based on nothing more than the eyeball test.

[Superman]

It's true of every QB/offense to an extent. But certainly not to the extent of our team, with its horrifyingly abysmal offensive line.

 

I'm not saying that the short passes for more completions approach over the chunk play approach is necessarily the wrong call for this team. In fact, I was pretty neutral yesterday over the change. Had we won and Luck had a 65% for 2 TDs then I would lean towards being conservative with the shorter passes. I am just not sure which approach is truly better, but I know we have won 11 games with the chunk play approach.

 

However, I will say that I thought Luck actually looked more comfortable throwing the quick hits yesterday. I am not sure if that was just my imagination or not, but he looked more decisive to me and seemed to be putting more zip on the ball. This is based on nothing more than the eyeball test.

 

I thought the same. Had a few batted balls, which is just due to really good coaching by the Ravens, but Luck is smart enough to find a hot option before the snap and go there, so long as we give him one.

 

I'll also say that I don't think it has to be one way or the other. I think simple tweaks to Arians' offense would make it much better (easy for me to say from my computer, but I do believe this). You don't have to eschew the downfield approach entirely, you can mix in some higher percentage plays with quick options (not just short options) in certain situations, and you can work the backs into the passing game more deliberately. I don't think it's entirely coincidence that Philip Rivers' efficiency tanked right when Darren Sproles left. Having a passing option out of the backfield makes life easier on the quarterback and harder on the defense. You don't have to scrap Arians' playbook entirely and go full WCO.

[Warhorse]

Not if the defense is blitzing, and Luck is only completing 54% of his passes.

 

The best way to slow down a blitz is by completing high percentage pass plays.

But aren't some of the blizters secondary, that who have to respect the deep pass more if it is effective?

[Jason_]

 

Arians and his offense have a lot of positives. The team and fanbase should be exceedingly grateful that he was around this season, because he helped Luck and did a great job filling in while Pagano was out. But I don't think his offense is the long term answer for our team. I wouldn't be in favor of us getting rid of him, but given how strong he was as the top guy, I think he deserves a head coaching gig. And selfishly, since I think we need an offense that does more to stress efficiency, I hope he gets one.

 

So I'm just curious here...what are your thoughts on Greg Knapp as a possible replacement for Arians should Arians accept a HC position elsewhere?  Knapp has become my favorite (of those I have thought of and researched so far).  My feelings on Norv Turner were already luke warm but have dropped to cold after doing some research.  It looks like the bulk of his reputation is built on what he did in Dallas, but in Dallas he had elite talent at just about every position on offense.  Since he left, his offenses have been pretty mediocre.

 

I saw in one thread you mentioned Marc Trestman.  One of the teams with a HC vacancy interviewed him or scheduled an interview but I can't remember who it was.  I'm thinking the Bears but not 100% on that.

[Jason_]

crap...double post..sorry

[Superman]

So I'm just curious here...what are your thoughts on Greg Knapp as a possible replacement for Arians should Arians accept a HC position elsewhere?  Knapp has become my favorite (of those I have thought of and researched so far).  My feelings on Norv Turner were already luke warm but have dropped to cold after doing some research.  It looks like the bulk of his reputation is built on what he did in Dallas, but in Dallas he had elite talent at just about every position on offense.  Since he left, his offenses have been pretty mediocre.

 

I saw in one thread you mentioned Marc Trestman.  One of the teams with a HC vacancy interviewed him or scheduled an interview but I can't remember who it was.  I'm thinking the Bears but not 100% on that.

 

On Trestman, the Bears and the Browns are interested in him. I hope he gets a shot, but I'm glad we weren't the ones to give it to him. And I would very much like to have him as a coordinator, but it looks like he's going to get a head coaching gig in the NFL whenever he really wants one.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8820776/marc-trestman-cleveland-browns-talk-reports

 

As for Greg Knapp, I've just heard and read too much negative about him to have a good feeling. His play calling is weird, and he seems a bit stubborn. JMO. Very much a WCO guy, which might be considered a positive, but he's also a Gary Kubiak guy, which doesn't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. Didn't have a favorable quarterback situation in Oakland, but also didn't do much to make things easier on his quarterback or his best weapon, McFadden, who struggles to run in a zone scheme (maybe that's Allen's fault for hiring Knapp in the first place). Has a lot of "tried and failed" on his resume, not all his fault, but it's his resume. I think we could do better.

[Superman]

But aren't some of the blizters secondary, that who have to respect the deep pass more if it is effective?

 

That's technically true, but deep passes are inherently low percentage. Balanced defenses go with man coverage down the field pretty often for that very reason. If we had a monster receiver who could outjump defenders, it would help, but we don't, and Arians seems to prefer smallish receivers.

 

The blitz is designed to make a quarterback uncomfortable and force him to make quick decisions. Needless to say, it's harder to take a shot downfield when the quarterback is under pressure from a blitz. That's why most offenses rely on hot routes -- quick options designed to beat a blitz -- rather than trying to beat the blitz with a deep pass.

 

I think everyone likes big passing plays down the field: coaches, players, fans, everyone except the defense. The vertical elements in Arians' offense aren't the problem, if you ask me. They have their place. The problem is that the vertical elements are the primary basis of his passing offense, which means a) you have to have great protection, and b) you have to complete low percentage plays more often. Just add more high percentage opportunities, and I bet the downfield options increase in efficiency over time.

[Balzer40]

On Trestman, the Bears and the Browns are interested in him. I hope he gets a shot, but I'm glad we weren't the ones to give it to him. And I would very much like to have him as a coordinator, but it looks like he's going to get a head coaching gig in the NFL whenever he really wants one.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8820776/marc-trestman-cleveland-browns-talk-reports

 

As for Greg Knapp, I've just heard and read too much negative about him to have a good feeling. His play calling is weird, and he seems a bit stubborn. JMO. Very much a WCO guy, which might be considered a positive, but he's also a Gary Kubiak guy, which doesn't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. Didn't have a favorable quarterback situation in Oakland, but also didn't do much to make things easier on his quarterback or his best weapon, McFadden, who struggles to run in a zone scheme (maybe that's Allen's fault for hiring Knapp in the first place). Has a lot of "tried and failed" on his resume, not all his fault, but it's his resume. I think we could do better.

 

 

I don't know much about Knapp either, but it would worry me that he has been fired so many times from the OC spot after very short terms. This last one, after only one season. Tells me, that he has some kind of problem that I'm not aware of.

[Jason_]

I don't know much about Knapp either, but it would worry me that he has been fired so many times from the OC spot after very short terms. This last one, after only one season. Tells me, that he has some kind of problem that I'm not aware of.

 

That could very well be.  It could also be that Allen or the front office realized that Knapp's system wasn't the best fit for Oakland's personnel.  Still, imo, a good OC should be able to adjust the system to the players and that didn't appear to happen.  I'd love to know why exactly he was fired.  I liked a lot of what I saw when I was researching the offenses of the teams he's been with before.  The recurring theme was fairly efficient QB play and a strong running game.  If he could bring that strong running game here and have a highly talented QB to work with then maybe he could create an offensive juggernaut.  On the other hand, maybe he's the type of coach that players hate and don't respond well to or maybe he doesn't work well with the other members of the coaching staff.  If any of those were the case then I would definitely not want him here.

 

I guess bottom line is I'd at least like to see him brought in for an interview.  I'm not high at all on Norv Turner.  I'm pretty meh on Wisenhunt.  I really would prefer to avoid anyone from the Andy Reid tree (Mornhinweg, Pat Shurmer) unless they stress that they are much more committed to a strong running game than Reid ever was. 

 

So who else is there? 

Al Saunders is out there as a consultant with the Raiders (I think).  He ran a successful offense in Kansas City for a few years.  He's also apparently an "Air" Coryell guy.

Jim Zorn maybe?  Current QB coach in Kansas City.  West coast guy.

Tom Cable? OL coach with Seattle

 

Just throwing some names out there.   lol

[Balzer40]

That could very well be.  It could also be that Allen or the front office realized that Knapp's system wasn't the best fit for Oakland's personnel.  Still, imo, a good OC should be able to adjust the system to the players and that didn't appear to happen.  I'd love to know why exactly he was fired.  I liked a lot of what I saw when I was researching the offenses of the teams he's been with before.  The recurring theme was fairly efficient QB play and a strong running game.  If he could bring that strong running game here and have a highly talented QB to work with then maybe he could create an offensive juggernaut.  On the other hand, maybe he's the type of coach that players hate and don't respond well to or maybe he doesn't work well with the other members of the coaching staff.  If any of those were the case then I would definitely not want him here.

 

I guess bottom line is I'd at least like to see him brought in for an interview.  I'm not high at all on Norv Turner.  I'm pretty meh on Wisenhunt.  I really would prefer to avoid anyone from the Andy Reid tree (Mornhinweg, Pat Shurmer) unless they stress that they are much more committed to a strong running game than Reid ever was. 

 

So who else is there? 

Al Saunders is out there as a consultant with the Raiders (I think).  He ran a successful offense in Kansas City for a few years.  He's also apparently an "Air" Coryell guy.

Jim Zorn maybe?  Current QB coach in Kansas City.  West coast guy.

Tom Cable? OL coach with Seattle

 

Just throwing some names out there.   lol

 

 

Yeah, I just don't know what the deal is with Knapp and until I looked him up didn't even know that he had been fired so many times after very short terms in the position. He may be a really good coodinator, but like you said, might be difficult to work with/for.

 

I don't really know who we should go after if Arians does leave, I would hope they find some young, up and coming offensive coach(not necessarily a known OC already) that can come in and instill a good offense that accentuates Lucks strengths. I just really hate the idea of maybe Clyde getting promoted. 

[bluephantom87]

I felt like adjustments were made to the offense later in the year, but by then, it was already too late. Once Dan O took over, we ran a much more simplified offense (that suited his talent level), IMO. We were traditionally a 1 back offense that ran out of 2 TE and spread formations, but focused more on the passing attack. Towards the end of the year, we stripped that strategy, inserted a fullback, went with more of a balanced attack, and either won or competed in 4 out of their last 5 games. 

 

I don't know whose idea it was to stay with the Manning offense, but we can all agree it was a colossal mistake. I don't know how many more wins we would've had, but given our talent level at QB, there's not much any coordinator could've done to make our offense respectable. A coordinator is only as good as the level of talent he has around him.

 

I agree that the offense should've been shifted as soon as we found out Peyton wasn't going to play at all. But again, we don't know whose call that was. Heck, it may have even been Peyton's call, being that he wanted to stay involved with the offense at some capacity. If you remember, he was essentially the QB coach last year. Bottom line is, we don't know all the circumstances (and likely never will) so I'm not going to base my opinion of Clyde as a coordinator entirely off last season. It was a unique position to be put in, and if it were a test, he certainly failed at it. It still wasn't your typical scenario for an O coordinator to be in, so he gets a little bit of a pass (from me, at least)  

Last year's offense still had fromer pro bowlers on the roster.

 

Exactly!!! When the goat went down Clyde looked like a deer in the headlights!!! For all those who want to knock Bruce, here's a man in his first year as the oc of the Colts with a rookie qb and one of the worst o-lines in the nfl but still managed an offense that pulled out 11 wins with Luck breaking the rookie yrd record. A man who has called plays in two Super Bowls winning one and almost another if not for Aaron Rogers. Big Ben didn't look the same without him. Now what has Clyde done on his OWN. He inherited Tom Moore's offense along with Peyton at the helm. Some want to give him a pass for last year saying look at his qbs but I say Painter was no rookie and had been here 3 seasons. Dan had started a couple of nfl games before and Bill thought enough of Kerry Collins (former SB losing qb) to give him 5 mil to come to a simplified offense that still had pro bowlers on the roster. What does Clyde do TRY to act like Peyton was still playing!! No type of adjustments to match the personnel or simplify the offense. Didn't try to put receivers in motion to gain favorable match-ups just the old "do what we do" but Clyde was no oc and lacks imagination. Now he has sat under Bruce and still does not have the mojo to be aggressive or manage more than fgs instead of tds with the predictable play calling. The only thing that helped Clyde seem ok yesterday was the drops by the receivers. Clyde must go.

Begging Mr Irsay, Grigs, and Chuck to really evaluate this situation with Clyde because in order for Luck to continue to develop to that elite level his oc will play a HUGE part in his growth. I say again what does Clyde bring to the table on his own? Seems like Norv might be headed to Dallas so I would leave no stone unturned in my search for the next oc IF Bruce happens to leave.

[YOUR GM]

Last year's offense still had fromer pro bowlers on the roster.

 

This means absolutely ziltch

[ColtsBlueFL]

If Arians leaves its clear...

The job goes to Clyde.

 

 

Joe Lombardi anyone?

[ColtsBlueFL]

^ ^ ^ This  Guy ^ ^ ^

 

I agree, Clyde has no creativity at all. His playcalling is completely predictable. I'm not a huge fan of Arians, but I'll take him everyday of the week and twice on Sundays over CC. If Arian's leaves, I think the Colts would be making a huge mistake if they promoted CC to OC. If Arians leaves, hopefully the Colts do their due diligence and go outside the organization to bring a young, creative, and intelligent guy from another team.

[Jason_]

 

Joe Lombardi anyone?

 

I'm down with that