what available oc could best match arians scheme

[Jason_]

That's an interesting look at some numbers, and I definitely appreciate you doing that kind of leg work, but it seems rather cherry picked. Neither of those stats provide a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of an offense or the strengths/weaknesses of the coordinator. If you look at the Colts rushing yards and ypc from 2003 to 2009, you might see similarly unimpressive stats, but there's no question we were one of the very best offenses in the league during that stretch.

 

Another thing I want to add, yes the Colts were one of the very best offenses during that time, but how many times did we see those Colt offenses dominate during the regular season but then screech to a halt in the playoffs due to lack of commitment to or inability to run the ball?  What I'm specifically looking for in a coordinator is one that creates a balanced offense, not just a high flying offense.  A high flying offense is great indoors and in good weather, but get into a game in the rain or snow and that same high powered offense could easily just fizzle out and be entirely ineffective.  How many playoff games did we lose for pretty much that exact reason? 

 

And of course I realize that what I hope for in a future OC may not be what Pagano or Grigson want or will look for.  I'm looking at this from what I would personally like to have in a new OC and the Colts offense.  I also don't think what I want is too far off from what Pagano wants either from comments he's made in interviews. 

 

Maybe a guy like Trestman comes in, Grigson fixes the OL and Pagano tells Trestman that he wants a balanced offense and Trestman designs an offense to what Pagano wants.  I have no doubt that could happen.  I'm just taking a quick glance at what tendencies may or may not show up in looking at the numbers from the offenses these guys have run in the past. 

[Superman]

Hmm, I guess you could say it's cherry picked, but it wasn't intentionally so.  And no it's not comprehensive by any means...I'm at work so only have so much time to fool around checking out NFL stats lol.   As I said when I posted the numbers for Saunders' career, it definitely doesn't take into account the personnel (available talent), the style of offense that may have been mandated or requested by the head coach and/or gm, injuries, etc etc. 

 

I just wanted to try to get an idea of the type of successful rushing attacks these guys were able to generate and how much of a commitment these guys have shown towards establishing a successful rushing attack.  Each of the guys that have been brought up so far have done well with QB's and had successful passing games under their watch so that's one reason I didn't bother posting anything about passing numbers, and another reason of course is the lack of time since, as I said, I'm at work.

 

I have no doubt that any of the guys mentioned so far (Knapp, Saunders, Telesco, Cameron etc) could help the Colts have a solid passing game.  My preference, and more importantly Pagano's preference, though is to also have a good rushing attack to go with that.  I'd prefer a totally balanced attack over a high-flying aerial attack, so that's why I've been primarily delving into the rushing numbers of the offenses these guys have directed. 

 

I agree with all that. I didn't think you were trying to present a comprehensive analysis.

 

Speaking of the Chiefs under Saunders, they had one of the best offensive lines in football, period. They had a great running back and a great tight end. I would expect them to be one of the most efficient rushing offenses. Not to take all credit away from the coordinator, but I think it's fair to say that he had favorable circumstances in KC.

[Superman]

Another thing I want to add, yes the Colts were one of the very best offenses during that time, but how many times did we see those Colt offenses dominate during the regular season but then screech to a halt in the playoffs due to lack of commitment to or inability to run the ball?  What I'm specifically looking for in a coordinator is one that creates a balanced offense, not just a high flying offense.  A high flying offense is great indoors and in good weather, but get into a game in the rain or snow and that same high powered offense could easily just fizzle out and be entirely ineffective.  How many playoff games did we lose for pretty much that exact reason? 

 

And of course I realize that what I hope for in a future OC may not be what Pagano or Grigson want or will look for.  I'm looking at this from what I would personally like to have in a new OC and the Colts offense.  I also don't think what I want is too far off from what Pagano wants either from comments he's made in interviews. 

 

Maybe a guy like Trestman comes in, Grigson fixes the OL and Pagano tells Trestman that he wants a balanced offense and Trestman designs an offense to what Pagano wants.  I have no doubt that could happen.  I'm just taking a quick glance at what tendencies may or may not show up in looking at the numbers from the offenses these guys have run in the past. 

 

Without getting too far into the merits of a so-called balanced offense, or the role lack of a rushing game played in our playoff losses, I agree that we would be well-served to do all we can to have a run game we can rely on. I wasn't trying to attack your approach, and I guess maybe it came across that way. I'm just saying that having a good running game isn't necessarily an indication of a good coordinator.

 

Take the Vikings, for instance. Their offense struggles, overall, but they have a great run game. The Falcons have taken a step back this season in terms of running the football under Dirk Koetter, but I believe their offense is better and more efficient this year than it ever was under Mularkey, whose run-heavy offense got shut out by the Giants in the playoffs last year.

 

Personally, I'm more interested in a coordinator's ability to play to the strengths of his team, rather than the unit's raw rushing numbers. And I'm not being dismissive of Saunders or anything you say; I agree with a lot of it. I just think I have a different focus than you do when it comes to what attributes our offensive coordinator should possess.

[DarkHorseColts]

We don't want to ground Luck too much but I wouldn't mind relying on the ground game a little more.

[basketballsteve]

I would be okay with Clyde for 2 reasons, he has to know the current system very well and could keep the terminology/playbook in place so no big learning curve for Luck, also he knows the old Tom Moore playbook like the back of his hand and there would be some useful ideas there to revive/blend into the current offense specifically on the calling of 3 plays and let Luck read and decide which one at the line, but I would only hire him the the understanding that his job is not as an innovator but to create continuity for Luck. I think there is no question that Peyton was his own OC on the field by half way through his career and that's what we should expect from Luck, a big name OC might hold the reins very tight and not allow Luck to do what Manning accomplished (that was the genius of Tom Moore).

[Jason_]

Without getting too far into the merits of a so-called balanced offense, or the role lack of a rushing game played in our playoff losses, I agree that we would be well-served to do all we can to have a run game we can rely on. I wasn't trying to attack your approach, and I guess maybe it came across that way. I'm just saying that having a good running game isn't necessarily an indication of a good coordinator.

 

Take the Vikings, for instance. Their offense struggles, overall, but they have a great run game. The Falcons have taken a step back this season in terms of running the football under Dirk Koetter, but I believe their offense is better and more efficient this year than it ever was under Mularkey, whose run-heavy offense got shut out by the Giants in the playoffs last year.

 

Personally, I'm more interested in a coordinator's ability to play to the strengths of his team, rather than the unit's raw rushing numbers. And I'm not being dismissive of Saunders or anything you say; I agree with a lot of it. I just think I have a different focus than you do when it comes to what attributes our offensive coordinator should possess.

 

Oh I know you weren't attacking my approach.  I was just simply explaining why I only pulled the information that I had posted and not any additional information.  So was just explaining my thought process, not being defensive.

 

I also completely agree with you regarding having a coordinator who plays to the strengths of his team.  That's why I like Mike McCoy and Rod Chudzinski, but I know those guys wouldn't take a lateral move so haven't even mentioned their names in any of these threads.  I think we actually have very similar thinking and focus on what we'd like out of our next coordinator.  It's just that in my posts I've primarily only been vocal about what I want from a coordinator in regards to what he could bring to our rushing game, because frankly I don't think even the most inept of coordinators could destroy our passing game.  We have a very talented QB and WR's/TE's with a lot of talent and upside.  I think they'd have little problems adapting to just about any type of offense.  What the new OC will have to do is determine what type of blocking schemes work best for the personnel we have and teach the OL the techniques to make the blocking scheme successful. 

 

So ultimately the 2 biggest things I'd like to see in an OC is the ability to develop a QB to help work with Luck on refining his game, and the ability to improve our blocking and running game.  I guess the most simplistic way I could put it is I'm looking for a QB coach who has a proven track record of directing a potent offense with a highly effective running game.

 

To your point specifically about Saunders with the Chiefs, I completely agree with you.  They had a dominant OL and a great RB during his time there.  That's why I'm still skeptical about Saunders.  Was the Chiefs' success due to his coaching, the talent he had to work with, or a combination of both?  It would be nice if he had gone to another team for 3-4 years that had much less talent so we could compare whether he was able to develop and gameplan around lesser players and have the same success.  It's for that reason that I"m not nearly as high on Norv Turner as a lot of people.  He hasn't had near the success that he had in Dallas since he left there and that's been with multiple teams, so that leads me to lean more towards Turner benefitting more from the players than they did from him.  Unfortunately though KC is the only place that Saunders was OC for a significant amount of time so not much to compare to.

[jlid]

I'm firmly in the Norv Turner camp if we lose Arians.  Not only is he one of the best offensive coordinators in the league, but he's flamed out as a head coach so many times he probably won't get another chance, and what I want more than anything is continuity for several seasons.  I definitely don't want Clyde.  Even if I agreed he called a good game Sunday, the gameplan was set in place beforehand and his part wasn't that hard, and all evidence of him installing a gameplan, then calling the game has been a failure.  Turner may be a pipe dream, but I really hope we look outside the organization if Arians leaves

[FalseStart]

Doug Nussmeier?

Norv Turner?

Jon Gruden?

Jason Garrett...waiting for the pink slip?

[Mameluc]

if BA leaves, i want a new guy, who wants to proof he is the deal

[RomanianColtsFan]

I would like somebody young that is imaginative and gets along with Luck.

[RGIII]

Well to be fair, Saunders hasn't had much of a chance since he left the Chiefs.  Now, maybe the chiefs were good because of the talent they had or maybe they were good because Saunders was a great coach.  Possibly a combination of both.  I can't say one way or another.  However, I personally wouldn't really take his time in St. Louis or Oakland as OC too much into account since he was only given one year as OC in each place.  Can't do a whole lot in just one year.  I would be curious to know why he only spent one year in each place as OC though.

 

Most of Vermeil's old coaches seem to have fallen out of favor.  Saunders became a rental coach after we brought him in to fix up our offense and Gibbs didn't really step back far enough to make it work.

 

Doug Nussmeier?

Norv Turner?

Jon Gruden?

Jason Garrett...waiting for the pink slip?

 

Garrett won't go anywhere until next offseason at the earliest.  You don't want him, anyway, he's a terrible playcaller.

 

Gruden is awful, too... in fact, Norv would be the best candidate on that list by a wide margin.  I'm a bit Norvophobic, personally.

[FalseStart]

Most of Vermeil's old coaches seem to have fallen out of favor.  Saunders became a rental coach after we brought him in to fix up our offense and Gibbs didn't really step back far enough to make it work.

 

 

Garrett won't go anywhere until next offseason at the earliest.  You don't want him, anyway, he's a terrible playcaller.

 

Gruden is awful, too... in fact, Norv would be the best candidate on that list by a wide margin.  I'm a bit Norvophobic, personally.

Thanks.

[BleedingBlue]

Sadly, that is not true. Some were complaining about our offense being too predictable even during the Tom Moore era.

True, mainly because a lot of folks here just like to complain. Nature of a discussion board I guess.

[itmustbejj]

True, mainly because a lot of folks here just like to complain. Nature of a discussion board I guess.

 

It was the truth. Largely, Tom Moore's offense was predictable. Our play calls were a direct relation to how the defense played us, specifically the slot/TE position. The premise was to play to the defense's weakness however they lined up, not trick them. It was basically a cat and mouse game that relied on the premise that the defense would make a mistake/get impatient before Peyton would.

[BleedingBlue]

we should go read-option

[BOTT]

Oh I know you weren't attacking my approach.  I was just simply explaining why I only pulled the information that I had posted and not any additional information.  So was just explaining my thought process, not being defensive.

 

I also completely agree with you regarding having a coordinator who plays to the strengths of his team.  That's why I like Mike McCoy and Rod Chudzinski, but I know those guys wouldn't take a lateral move so haven't even mentioned their names in any of these threads.  I think we actually have very similar thinking and focus on what we'd like out of our next coordinator.  It's just that in my posts I've primarily only been vocal about what I want from a coordinator in regards to what he could bring to our rushing game, because frankly I don't think even the most inept of coordinators could destroy our passing game.  We have a very talented QB and WR's/TE's with a lot of talent and upside.  I think they'd have little problems adapting to just about any type of offense.  What the new OC will have to do is determine what type of blocking schemes work best for the personnel we have and teach the OL the techniques to make the blocking scheme successful. 

 

So ultimately the 2 biggest things I'd like to see in an OC is the ability to develop a QB to help work with Luck on refining his game, and the ability to improve our blocking and running game.  I guess the most simplistic way I could put it is I'm looking for a QB coach who has a proven track record of directing a potent offense with a highly effective running game.

 

To your point specifically about Saunders with the Chiefs, I completely agree with you.  They had a dominant OL and a great RB during his time there.  That's why I'm still skeptical about Saunders.  Was the Chiefs' success due to his coaching, the talent he had to work with, or a combination of both?  It would be nice if he had gone to another team for 3-4 years that had much less talent so we could compare whether he was able to develop and gameplan around lesser players and have the same success.  It's for that reason that I"m not nearly as high on Norv Turner as a lot of people.  He hasn't had near the success that he had in Dallas since he left there and that's been with multiple teams, so that leads me to lean more towards Turner benefitting more from the players than they did from him.  Unfortunately though KC is the only place that Saunders was OC for a significant amount of time so not much to compare to.

Don't tell Carolina's running backs that chudzinski plays to the teams strengths

[Tark The Shark]

Personally, I like Chan Gailey as a possible OC. His offenses were good while he was the Bills HC and made stars out of nobodies.

 

Problem was he didn't have a good QB or a good defense to stay as the HC of the Bills.

[Superman]

Don't tell Carolina's running backs that chudzinski plays to the teams strengths

 

He did last season, and then went back to it later this season. I don't know what they were trying to do the rest of the year, though. It's like they were obsessed with their shiny toy (Newton) and forgot that it needs batteries (a solid run game) to work.

[ColtsBlueFL]

if BA leaves, i want a new guy, who wants to proof he is the deal

 

RomanianColtsFan said- I would like somebody young that is imaginative and gets along with Luck.

 

I got just the guy-   :rulez:  Joe Lombardi

 

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/team/coaches/joe-lombardi/6ea20688-c6f3-4149-b2ea-e092d93305b0

 

[krunk]

I'm firmly in the Norv Turner camp if we lose Arians.  Not only is he one of the best offensive coordinators in the league, but he's flamed out as a head coach so many times he probably won't get another chance, and what I want more than anything is continuity for several seasons.  I definitely don't want Clyde.  Even if I agreed he called a good game Sunday, the gameplan was set in place beforehand and his part wasn't that hard, and all evidence of him installing a gameplan, then calling the game has been a failure.  Turner may be a pipe dream, but I really hope we look outside the organization if Arians leaves

 

My gut is telling me he may wind up in Dallas with Jerry Jones. I think Jones is going to force Garrett to get an OC, and that man would be Norv Turner. A familiar face, and scheme.

[Dudley Smith]

If BA leaves, my first choice would be Norv Turner, but if we can't get Norv, and it sounds like we won't, then I would prefer a new up-and-comer, a guy who has never been the OC before and comes in hungry. I don't know who that would be, but I know there have been some lists being posted here and there. Most of the recycled OCs are recycled because they weren't good somewhere else. While a new environment or the right QB can make all the difference, I don't know if it is necessarily good form to hire a guy who has been unimpressive elsewhere and expect him to come in and produce for our Colts. Norv Turner is different in my opinion because I think he is just a bad HC, but a good OC. Sounds like he will probably end up in Dallas anyway though.

 

As far as Clyde goes, I wouldn't absolutely hate the promotion, but I think it would just show laziness and/or a good ol' boys attitude by the Colts to do so. Clyde's track record is also unimpressive as the OC, although that is very limited. One thing I do think Clyde would do that a lot of would like is that he would give Luck a lot more freedom than he has under Arians. I think we would see the no huddle a lot more and probably some more offensive schemes/concepts from the Manning years. This might help balance out Clyde's predictability as a playcaller.

[BOTT]

If BA leaves, my first choice would be Norv Turner, but if we can't get Norv, and it sounds like we won't, then I would prefer a new up-and-comer, a guy who has never been the OC before and comes in hungry. I don't know who that would be, but I know there have been some lists being posted here and there. Most of the recycled OCs are recycled because they weren't good somewhere else. While a new environment or the right QB can make all the difference, I don't know if it is necessarily good form to hire a guy who has been unimpressive elsewhere and expect him to come in and produce for our Colts. Norv Turner is different in my opinion because I think he is just a bad HC, but a good OC. Sounds like he will probably end up in Dallas anyway though.

As far as Clyde goes, I wouldn't absolutely hate the promotion, but I think it would just show laziness and/or a good ol' boys attitude by the Colts to do so. Clyde's track record is also unimpressive as the OC, although that is very limited. One thing I do think Clyde would do that a lot of would like is that he would give Luck a lot more freedom than he has under Arians. I think we would see the no huddle a lot more and probably some more offensive schemes/concepts from the Manning years. This might help balance out Clyde's predictability as a playcaller.

What makes it sounds like the colts couldn't get norv turner? Guys speculating on a message board who have no clue?

[Dudley Smith]

What makes it sounds like the colts couldn't get norv turner? Guys speculating on a message board who have no clue?

 

It seems to be the general consensus, here and elsewhere, that Dallas would have the first chance at him. And if he doesn't end up there then I see no reason why the Colts couldn't get him....outside of the fact that currently Bruce Arians is still the OC. If he is gone there is nothing standing in the way.

[Mameluc]

I have seen here and on twitter lot of people supporting the idea of Clyde...can anyone tell me why you like him? its an honest question, not sarcasting in any way. I want to know what he brings to the table that many people wouldn't mind having him as OC

[Balzer40]

I have seen here and on twitter lot of people supporting the idea of Clyde...can anyone tell me why you like him? its an honest question, not sarcasting in any way. I want to know what he brings to the table that many people wouldn't mind having him as OC

 

 

I honestly do not know why anybody would want him to be promoted. He blew his chance last yr. IMO, not to mention, he was also the OC for Dungy in his last yr. at Tampa. He didn't really show any creativity there either. IMO promoting CC to OC if Arians leaves is going to be a major setback to Luck and the entire offense in general. I hate the thoughts of him getting promoted to OC. It actually scares me.

[Dudley Smith]

I honestly do not know why anybody would want him to be promoted. He blew his chance last yr. IMO, not to mention, he was also the OC for Dungy in his last yr. at Tampa. He didn't really show any creativity there either. IMO promoting CC to OC if Arians leaves is going to be a major setback to Luck and the entire offense in general. I hate the thoughts of him getting promoted to OC. It actually scares me.

 

I definitely don't want CC. Like I said I prefer Turner or a bright young mind over CC all day. But, on the other hand CC would provide the most continuity to BA if BA leaves, and I think he would give more freedom to Luck than BA would if BA stays. But I agree, CC left A LOT to be desired his his two years as coordinator with the Colts.

[BOTT]

It seems to be the general consensus, here and elsewhere, that Dallas would have the first chance at him. And if he doesn't end up there then I see no reason why the Colts couldn't get him....outside of the fact that currently Bruce Arians is still the OC. If he is gone there is nothing standing in the way.

Well if there is one thing I have learned in sports is that talk like is usually a lot of nonsense...people are just making that connection that because of past ties to Dallas .

[HarassedOffTheSite]

It's not really a matter of liking his schemes, as coaching turnover has proved to be the #1 cause of QB draft busts. You stick with an OC for the first 3-4 years of development, and by that time they are familiar enough with the NFL, that a system overhault shouldn't effect their production as much. What you are seeing is people not necessarily fearing the loss of Arians for his system, but because with a team this young, especially on offense, having stability going forward is paramount to success.

 

Spot on!!

[AntonMcG]

I love Arian's offense so much, it opens up the field and is aggresive. I hate to sound like a broken record but the o-line as the reason there was not a lot more success in this system. Teams respecting play-action through a decent run game and Luck have time to throw will have this offense bearing the fruits if Bruce is still here. If he goes, give it ti Christiansen for the sake of continuity. 

[Dudley Smith]

Well if there is one thing I have learned in sports is that talk like is usually a lot of nonsense...people are just making that connection that because of past ties to Dallas .

 

You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know. I realize reports and so called sports "pundits" are not always right. I didn't start watching sports yesterday. However, where there is smoke there is fire, and if enough people believe something that generally means there is some validity to it. I didn't once state that Norv Turner is definitely going to end up in Dallas. Sorry if you took exception with me saying he would "probably" end up in Dallas. I take it back if that makes you happy.

[Balzer40]

I think people that are saying that CC would keep continuity and the same scheme might be dreaming. I don't know just how much of Arians offense CC even knows. He's only been around it 1 yr. and when he replaced Arians the other day, didn't really run the same style. If Luck had been under the Arians system for 3 yrs. or so I could see the continuity argument, but its only been 1 yr.. Luck could easily learn another system well before training camp even rolled around. 

[Dudley Smith]

I think people that are saying that CC would keep continuity and the same scheme might be dreaming. I don't know just how much of Arians offense CC even knows. He's only been around it 1 yr. and when he replaced Arians the other day, didn't really run the same style. If Luck had been under the Arians system for 3 yrs. or so I could see the continuity argument, but its only been 1 yr.. Luck could easily learn another system well before training camp even rolled around. 

 

If this is in response to me I guess I was just stating what I believe are the only upsides of CC. I agree that Luck could learn a new offense rapidly, and I don't agree with some others in the thread that switching coordinators so soon in Luck's career is such a bad thing. I do believe that getting the right OC for Luck in his first few seasons is important though. This is probably what worries me the most about CC as the OC. His vanilla playcalling I don't think would be a huge issue, especially if he gave Luck more freedom in the offense, but I definitely question his ability to help Luck grow and mature as an NFL QB in his coaching him day to day in practice, etc. In that respect I think there are much, much better candidates out there for the position than CC.

 

Hopefullly Arians stays and we don't need to even worry about it.

[BOTT]

You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know. I realize reports and so called sports "pundits" are not always right. I didn't start watching sports yesterday. However, where there is smoke there is fire, and if enough people believe something that generally means there is some validity to it. I didn't once state that Norv Turner is definitely going to end up in Dallas. Sorry if you took exception with me saying he would "probably" end up in Dallas. I take it back if that makes you happy.

I think misread the tone of my response....I wasn't at all trying to be insulting or taking exception to anything.

[Dudley Smith]

I think misread the tone of my response....I wasn't at all trying to be insulting or taking exception to anything.

 

I apologize then. That's my fault for taking it the wrong way.

[BOTT]

I think people that are saying that CC would keep continuity and the same scheme might be dreaming. I don't know just how much of Arians offense CC even knows. He's only been around it 1 yr. and when he replaced Arians the other day, didn't really run the same style. If Luck had been under the Arians system for 3 yrs. or so I could see the continuity argument, but its only been 1 yr.. Luck could easily learn another system well before training camp even rolled around. 

Given the circumstances I thought Clyde called a pretty good game. I thought he was more consistent with the run game until the colts got down late and it appeared he tried to work in the short passing more than Arians....although it seemed he coulda taken a few more shots downfield.

I guess I'm trying to say his hiring, if BA leaves, doesn't scare me as much as it did previously

[Balzer40]

If this is in response to me I guess I was just stating what I believe are the only upsides of CC. I agree that Luck could learn a new offense rapidly, and I don't agree with some others in the thread that switching coordinators so soon in Luck's career is such a bad thing. I do believe that getting the right OC for Luck in his first few seasons is important though. This is probably what worries me the most about CC as the OC. His vanilla playcalling I don't think would be a huge issue, especially if he gave Luck more freedom in the offense, but I definitely question his ability to help Luck grow and mature as an NFL QB in his coaching him day to day in practice, etc. In that respect I think there are much, much better candidates out there for the position than CC.

 

Hopefullly Arians stays and we don't need to even worry about it.

 

 

Not in response to you. In general response to those saying that CC would provide continuity for Luck. More than you have said it. I said before that I would hate for Arians to leave because it may stunt Luck's growth, but the more I thought about it, the more I think now would be the best time in Lucks career to start over with a new OC if Arians does leave.

 

Its only going to be his 2nd season and he is an extremely bright kid. I think rather than just promoting a guy from within to keep continuity, it would be wiser to bring in a guy that could work with Luck and design an offense that works with his strengths. Just hiring from within is taking the easy and lazy way out.

 

Luck is such a smart kid, it would be much better to get an OC here that is creative and innovative rather than safe and stale like CC would be. If arians leaves, now is the best time to change things up and get a young bright OC here to grow with Luck.

[BProland85]

I loved clydes playcalling

With such a promising future, this OC job is very desirable. I gotta think we can do better than Clyde. Someone like Marc Trestman could be interested.

[BProland85]

I don't know how much he will fit Arians system but don't be shocked if we hire Cam Cameron.  He worked with Pagano with the Ravens and I could see him bringing him in. 

 

Another dark horse guy to watch is Marc Trestman from the CFL.  I don't know if he would give up a CFL Head Coaching job for an OC job in the NFL but he if he would I think he would have a shot.  According to Mort Grigson loves him and Mort thinks he was the runner up to Pagano for the Indy job.  With that said Trestman is getting some attention for NFL Head Coaching jobs so he would probably be a long shot. 

If Trestman doesnt get the HC job he wants, I could see him wanting this OC position. Who wouldnt wanna work with a young franchise QB in Luck, and a stable franchise in Indy that has money to spend.

[AntonMcG]

I think people that are saying that CC would keep continuity and the same scheme might be dreaming. I don't know just how much of Arians offense CC even knows. He's only been around it 1 yr. and when he replaced Arians the other day, didn't really run the same style. If Luck had been under the Arians system for 3 yrs. or so I could see the continuity argument, but its only been 1 yr.. Luck could easily learn another system well before training camp even rolled around. 

 

 

 

There are more players on this offense than Luck though, and probably all of them couldn't learn a playbook as quick as Luck could. I don't want all the good work this year to go out the window, these players were drafted for this system, and it worked and has so much potential for improvement. I for one would hate to start that all over again.

[Superman]

There are more players on this offense than Luck though, and probably all of them couldn't learn a playbook as quick as Luck could. I don't want all the good work this year to go out the window, these players were drafted for this system, and it worked and has so much potential for improvement. I for one would hate to start that all over again.

 

What players? Receivers and tight ends fit whatever system you put them in.

 

As for learning the play book, I'm sure Luck has a leg up on them there, but it's unlikely that we wind up keeping the same offensive system for the rest of all time. At some point, our guys are going to need to be able to pick up new concepts.

 

I think it's a mistake to hold on to a flawed system just because you're afraid your guys can't learn something else. (Yes, I think Arians' system is flawed.) If we believe someone runs a good system and we have a shot at landing them, we should go for it.