Already tired of Pagano

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

I said basically the same thing in the other thread: 

 

You can't be an an easy going coach at first and then try to be a tough guy after that. What players are going to respond to that? You come off disingenuous!  

 

Think of your boss right now. If he/she has been a softy the entire time you've worked there, and then decided one they are going to be a ballbuster, is it really going to resonate with employees? 

 

First off,  roughly half of this current roster has never been with the Colts before,  so they don't know Pagano.

 

Second,   the players know what the lay of the land is.....     they know that Pagano is fighting for his life and is doing what he can to save his job.      If the players are thin skinned about this,  I'd be seriously disappointed.

 

If the players like Pagano, which has always been the belief around here,  then they should be rallying to his cause.     They should be fighting to make sure the teams wins and Chuck stays.....

 

And if not........?       Well,  then there will be a new coach for the Colts in 2018.

 

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

First off,  roughly half of this current roster has never been with the Colts before,  so they don't know Pagano.

 

Second,   the players know what the lay of the land is.....     they know that Pagano is fighting for his life and is doing what he can to save his job.      If the players are thin skinned about this,  I'd be seriously disappointed.

 

If the players like Pagano, which has always been the belief around here,  then they should be rallying to his cause.     They should be fighting to make sure the teams wins and Chuck stays.....

 

And if not........?       Well,  then there will be a new coach for the Colts in 2018.

 

Not much more to say than that.

All this whining and crying is all old news at this point. Chuck has his chance this season. I think that is all the ones who think Chuck is a good coach wanted. In this off season Irsay has already said the win-loss record would not be the determining factor in Chuck being replaced. It would be on how well of a job Chuck actually coached.

I am sure Ballard will factor in this also so only time will tell.

Meanwhile all this banter is a waist of time IMO.

[Farns01]

The problem I see is Pagano doesn't inspire the players like he needs to.  During his first season the players were focused on winning for their sick coach.  This team has turned over most of the players since then and while the new players know of the coach's history.  He is healthy and they are more focused on trying to make the NFL a career.  

[NewColtsFan]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

(This is gonna be a long post, even for me. I put your previous post in a spoiler tag for the sake of length.)

 

??? 

 

This is a gross mischarecterization of my criticisms. I think maybe you're under the impression that I'm laying all the blame for a couple of disappointing preseason games at the feet of Chud, and I'm not.

 

First off, if people think Chud is to blame for the poor preseason because of my posts, then they aren't paying attention to my posts. Because none of my criticisms of this preseason have anything to do with the offense. I don't know how you reach that conclusion. My criticisms of Chud pre-date these two preseason games, and I've been vocally defending Tolzien against unreasonable claims. 

 

My problem with this preseason is effort, intensity, physicality, a lack of focus... and the only criticism that's even remotely related to the offense has been my incredulity that they'd pull Tolzien so quickly in the first game. I believe that, in order for us to have any chance of winning without Luck, the defense has to play well, and the defense hasn't shown any ability to even do the basics so far. Again, I really don't understand where you're coming from here.

 

I've been critical of Chud this offseason because I don't like his offense. Not once have I called him incompetent. I haven't said he can't coach. I certainly haven't blamed this preseason on him. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. You're lumping in a lot of different thoughts, and some of them aren't even mine. 

 

I don't know if this is about Chud or not, but let's dive deeper there. As I said in the last post, Chud did a really good job in 2015, without Luck, especially in the last game. And he deserves some credit for the offense being as productive as it was in 2016, despite a bad OL. 

 

But let's talk about the OL. It's been a mess for five years. Chud takes over officially at the start of 2016, and he winds up with a core group that features three rookies, a second year guy who was picked at the end of the 7th round, and three established vets. That the line would struggle to protect at times was predictable. Yet, our offense wound up running 220 pass plays with 7 step drops, and only 91 pass plays with 3 step drops, only 9 WR/TE screens, and only 12 designed rollouts; Luck was under pressure on 44% of his dropbacks (all per PFF's podcast, from May). We can probably argue forever about whether those numbers are accurate, but I don't think you would disagree that the Colts' passing attack features long developing concepts, and is short on designs that get the ball out quick and take pressure off of the OL, would you? So this offense -- that Chud calls -- is not minimizing weaknesses, it's exacerbating them, particularly the fact that our OL struggles in pass protection.

 

I know Luck had a good year, and the offense was top 10 in points and yards, and we were strong in the red zone, and all that. That doesn't mean the offense was maximized. And when you look at specific situations, including the plays that were called and the way they were executed, it's plain and clear that the offense did not reach it's full potential last season. Look at the play we ran in the Houston game, with the season basically on the line, and tell me that looked like a top ten offense.

 

Chud has one of the best weapons in the NFL in Luck, and he knows it. He knows that Luck can extend plays when he's under pressure, and still get the ball to his receivers, and he relies on it. This is not how Chud called games for Hasselbeck, Whitehurst, Freeman and Lindley. It's not how he called the Steelers game for Tolzien last year, and it's not how he's been calling the preseason so far this year.

 

In my opinion, the offense with Luck would be more efficient, and thereby more effective at helping to win games, if Chud were less reliant on Luck's ability to make plays, and more proactive in taking pressure off of the OL to block for long developing pass plays.

 

By the way, this is the same thing I said about Bruce Arians in 2012, who runs a similar offense. It's not anything against Chud specifically, but I've been on record for five years now as not being a fan of this offensive philosophy. I don't know why that's suddenly a surprise now. When he took over last year, I said I hoped his vision for the offense was reflected in the 2015 Denver game and in the way he innovated a win in Week 17. I don't think either of those things came true in 2016.

 

Last thing I'll say, because this is already way too long... the fact that you note a change of tone in my posts right now might mean something different than what you think it means. If I'm always the guy stressing context, telling people that they're overreacting and being unfair, if I'm the guy who usually defends the staff against overly negative and unreasonable posters, but here I am saying I don't think the staff is doing a good job right now -- does that mean I'm lopsided? Or does it maybe mean that I'm disappointed with what I believe to be a lack of intensity and urgency from this team right now? Set aside my being unimpressed with Chud -- if I'm saying I'm disappointed with the team in preseason, doesn't that suggest something's wrong?

 

I'm just asking for the benefit of the doubt. I don't rant and go negative. I don't call for coaches' heads. But I think this coaching staff is coming up seriously short right now. 

 

First.....    I didn't respond to it because I didn't see it.      I was not ignoring it.

 

Second....     you now sound generally surprised that so many here are anti-Chud.     Why do you think so many are?      I'll save you the problem of taking the credit.     There is no one here who has banged the anti-Chud drum longer or louder than you.    

 

You may not have intended for your posts to have this effect,  but they have.    For you to deny responsibility is to say that you didn't think your small little camp fire would spark and turn into an out of control forest fire.   Well,  that kind of thing happens in all 50 states every single year.     The nature of unintended consequences.

 

You may not have intended to have the posters marching with pitch forks and lit torches,  but that's what we have here.      Forgive the metaphor.     People here wants Chud's head.     

 

Let me try and put thuis another way.    You were satisfied with Chud in 2015.     You thought he had a really good year.     Now, after one season,   ONE,  that you yourself note was successful in a number of ways,  you're ready to move on from him.     If Irsay had hired you instead of Ballard to be the GM you would have fired Chud this off-season.

 

Respectfully,  after one season that you didn't like,   I don't think there an argument --- any argument --- for firing him after just one season.     None at all.

 

Now,  talk to me in a year,  and I may have a serious change of heart.

 

I've posted here with you that I believe that Ballard will ask Chud to do more of what you want.    MORE OF WHAT i THINKW WE ALL WANT.     That I think he'll share with Chud why the Chiefs defense toyed with his offense in 2016.   It would border on professional miscondicut for Ballard NOT to tell Chud what his short comings are,  and how he can make things better.     So, I'm expecting a better run offense in 2017 that maximizes our talent and circumstance even better.

 

If we don't see it in 2017,   I'll be OK with moving on.      I just don't get the argument for dumping Chud after one season.      Gee,  we gave Pep Hamilton two and a half seasons,  and you're ready to move on from Chud after one.    Doesn't that seem more than a little strange to you?!?

 

 

[Superman]

43 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

First.....    I didn't respond to it because I didn't see it.      I was not ignoring it.

 

Second....     you now sound generally surprised that so many here are anti-Chud.     Why do you think so many are?      I'll save you the problem of taking the credit.     There is no one here who has banged the anti-Chud drum longer or louder than you.    

 

You may not have intended for your posts to have this effect,  but they have.    For you to deny responsibility is to say that you didn't think your small little camp fire would spark and turn into an out of control forest fire.   Well,  that kind of thing happens in all 50 states every single year.     The nature of unintended consequences.

 

You may not have intended to have the posters marching with pitch forks and lit torches,  but that's what we have here.      Forgive the metaphor.     People here wants Chud's head.     

 

Let me try and put thuis another way.    You were satisfied with Chud in 2015.     You thought he had a really good year.     Now, after one season,   ONE,  that you yourself note was successful in a number of ways,  you're ready to move on from him.     If Irsay had hired you instead of Ballard to be the GM you would have fired Chud this off-season.

 

Respectfully,  after one season that you didn't like,   I don't think there an argument --- any argument --- for firing him after just one season.     None at all.

 

Now,  talk to me in a year,  and I may have a serious change of heart.

 

I've posted here with you that I believe that Ballard will ask Chud to do more of what you want.    MORE OF WHAT i THINKW WE ALL WANT.     That I think he'll share with Chud why the Chiefs defense toyed with his offense in 2016.   It would border on professional miscondicut for Ballard NOT to tell Chud what his short comings are,  and how he can make things better.     So, I'm expecting a better run offense in 2017 that maximizes our talent and circumstance even better.

 

If we don't see it in 2017,   I'll be OK with moving on.      I just don't get the argument for dumping Chud after one season.      Gee,  we gave Pep Hamilton two and a half seasons,  and you're ready to move on from Chud after one.    Doesn't that seem more than a little strange to you?!?

 

Yeah, I disagree for a number of reasons. First off, I didn't start the anti-Chud stuff. People have disliked Chud since long before I became a vocal critic. To piggyback on your analogy, I didn't start this camp fire.

 

Second, I was just as critical of Pep "No Play Action" Hamilton, remember that? You didn't blame me for people disliking Pep, and I think the anti-Pep stuff around here was way harsher than the anti-Chud stuff has been.

 

Third, I have NOT blamed Chud for this preseason performance so far, not once. I don't even think there's a lot of anti-Chud stuff going on right now. You're acting like everyone on this site is saying the Colts haven't played well in preseason because of Chud, and I think that's blown way out of proportion to begin with, so don't be surprised that I'm not eager to take credit for it.

 

After 2015, I was hopeful that the good stuff we'd seen from Chud was indicative of what he'd call with Luck on the field. I was also hopeful that the good stuff we saw from Pagano in 2015 -- like the innovative, urgent and downright hungry approach they took in Week 17 with their jobs on the line -- would carry over to 2016. It turns out Chud wound up running the offense in a way I didn't like, fundamentally. And it turns out that Pagano didn't show improvement in some critical areas, either.

 

So you're right, if it were up to me, I'd want a new staff, which includes a different OC. And that's not because I think Chud is incompetent, or can't coach, or is to blame for everything wrong with the Colts (nor have I said any of that, so I don't know why you're trying to pin any of that on me). It's because, fundamentally, I disagree with his offensive philosophy. This is not new; I disagreed with Arians' offensive philosophy, after just one year, which happens to be the same general offense Chud runs (and that's evidently because Pagano wants this offense). 

 

Answer me this: If you were the GM, would you have brought back this staff this year?

 

Either way, here we are. The staff is staying for 2017, at least. And like you say, it would be professional misconduct for Ballard not to impress upon Chud -- and the rest of the staff -- his expectations for this season. Part of Ballard's job is to manage the coaching staff -- to get the best out of them -- otherwise how can he evaluate them fairly? It wouldn't be in good faith for Ballard not to spend time with the staff going over what he thinks they can do better, from big picture stuff to specific details, wherever and whenever he sees fit. He's already influenced Pagano to allow more contact in training camp, and I'm sure his fingerprints are on other decisions that have been made and will be made. If I were in his shoes, I'd be doing the same thing. Like you say, I think he should be sitting down with Chud and explaining why the Chiefs seemed like they had 12 defenders on the field all game long.

 

Like you, I'm hoping for a better coaching performance, from all corners. We've seen indications that some things will be different; the jury is out on whether things will be better. But as a Colts fan, it's my sincere hope that this coaching staff does a great job in 2017. 

 

I just don't get how you and I both think Chud had issues last season, we both want him to do specific things better, but I'm solely responsible for everyone else on the site being anti-Chud. I can't accept that, especially since I haven't said most of these things you're attributing to me.

 

[Zoltan]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

The name of your tread is "Already Tired Of Pagano". You weren't looking for a debate or an opinion.

 

Dude I don't know what your deal is, I know what my intentions were when I created this, the title was a summarization of what I wrote for the opening. If you don't like the conversation then leave no one is making you read them or create your own thread with a title you like idc. 

[crazycolt1]

24 minutes ago, Colton Stenger said:

Dude I don't know what your deal is, I know what my intentions were when I created this, the title was a summarization of what I wrote for the opening. If you don't like the conversation then leave no one is making you read them or create your own thread with a title you like idc. 

Superman was 100% correct. Just say it...... You hate Pagano. It's not that hard.

You made up a thread to draw others who what Pagano gone by calling it "Already Tired Of Pagano' after two pre season games.

So Pagano changed his normal way he presents himself to the media and you make an issue of it.

Like it or not Pagano is the head coach for the Colts. That is the way it is. He is not going to be fired this season. If he coaches well he will get extended. If he don't coach well he will lose his job. till then you can cry, whine, yell, pout and spew all the hate you care to. We do have free speech so knock yourself out.

[lollygagger8]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

First off,  roughly half of this current roster has never been with the Colts before,  so they don't know Pagano.

 

Second,   the players know what the lay of the land is.....     they know that Pagano is fighting for his life and is doing what he can to save his job.      If the players are thin skinned about this,  I'd be seriously disappointed.

 

If the players like Pagano, which has always been the belief around here,  then they should be rallying to his cause.     They should be fighting to make sure the teams wins and Chuck stays.....

 

And if not........?       Well,  then there will be a new coach for the Colts in 2018.

 

 

Maybe the players that do know Chuck, like the old soft Chuck and don't like him trying to all the sudden act hard. Maybe they are thin skinned like you said. None of us know how they'll respond. 

 

Also, players talk to each other and staff, so it's not like the new guys aren't going to know how Pagano was/now is.

 

This is Chuck's year to prove himself. Simple as that.   

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

19 hours ago, Colton Stenger said:

You make some valid points about him not having a losing season, but not having a losing season isn't good enough in my opinion. We brought in a defensive coach who could finally give us a good defense so we could finally not rely on the arm of our quarterback, which was the reason we only have 1 Super Bowl win with manning and the reason why Aaron Rodgers only has one Super Bowl win and I think if we don't have a losing season this year it's gonna be because Luck comes back and saves the season, otherwise I see us below 500

I have coached ball " Baseball" for 20 plus years I consider myself to be a very good coach. With that being said, I have had some teams were 500 was really the best one could hope for based on talent. The idea as a coach is to get the best you can get out of a player and improve everyday. When you have great players the same and usually a better record. Pagano in his defense has not got to pick his own picks Grigson did what input h had is unsure, but based on he is still here and Grigson isn't tells me not much, on top of that most draft picks were spent on offensive players not defensive. Through in a lot of injuries on the DL and secondary ie lesser talent on the field we have what we have. I think Pagano is a good coach not a great one, but he does know how to win, and motivate guys. Thats good enough for me. And yes a much younger team this year, without Luck, not so good with the QB's we have. At least we had Hassleback we Luck was hurt before. I do believe we get the pieces ie players on defense we need, Pagano will put together a fine defense.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

14 hours ago, Farns01 said:

The problem I see is Pagano doesn't inspire the players like he needs to.  During his first season the players were focused on winning for their sick coach.  This team has turned over most of the players since then and while the new players know of the coach's history.  He is healthy and they are more focused on trying to make the NFL a career.  

This is wrong!!

[masterlock]

On 8/21/2017 at 6:41 PM, dudley dawson said:

Prediction: Jon Gruden will be HC next season.

Not going to happen...ever.

[coltsfeva]

On 8/21/2017 at 3:58 PM, Colton Stenger said:

Is it just me or is anyone else already tired of Pagano and his complaining. He can't blame his GM anymore so he's looking for a new scapegoat to cover his butt, he's a defensive coach with a consistently bad defense and has made poor hirings for offensive coordinator (not counting Arians) and after his last rant blaming his young players for there injuries and lack of production just amazes me, with that attitude he is gonna lose the locker room. I do think Ballard has improved the defense and offense (the addition of Mack at Rb is promising) but I do believe we will not improve as a team until we have a real leader at Head Coach, I don't know who that is but I trust Ballard to make smart decisions moving forward.

As far as Pagano's ability as a head coach: 

1. It seems the players, assistant coaches and most importantly, the owner believe in him. They know FAR more about the nuances of the game and his coaching abilities than we do.

2. Look around the league - I'm sure fans from Seattle wanted Pete Carroll out, after the SB debacle, the same with Dan Quinn in Atlanta. Even the great Bill Belichick had an estimated 75% of the fan base against him in Cleveland (he had ONE winning record in his first six years as HC

 

3. I want to see the team healthy (relatively) and give Pags a shot. If he is as incompetent as fans say, it will show. But I find too many fans are just waiting for him to mess up without seeing the good. And I don't think it's just the Colts fan base. It happened in Philadelphia with Andy Reid (and now Doug Pederson), probably happening in places like Cincinnati as well. 

 People think bringing in a new coaching staff and scheme would be seamless and would be a long-term solution. And they could be 

right. It could also prolong the agony, if it doesn't work out.

   All coaches have cliches and coach speak, so Pagano is not alone in that regard. Let's just see how this year turns out. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. If so, I would hope distain for Pagano turns into respect.

 

[Zoltan]

10 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

As far as Pagano's ability as a head coach: 

1. It seems the players, assistant coaches and most importantly, the owner believe in him. They know FAR more about the nuances of the game and his coaching abilities than we do.

2. Look around the league - I'm sure fans from Seattle wanted Pete Carroll out, after the SB debacle, the same with Dan Quinn in Atlanta. Even the great Bill Belichick had an estimated 75% of the fan base against him in Cleveland (he had ONE winning record in his first six years as HC

 

 

3. I want to see the team healthy (relatively) and give Pags a shot. If he is as incompetent as fans say, it will show. But I find too many fans are just waiting for him to mess up without seeing the good. And I don't think it's just the Colts fan base. It happened in Philadelphia with Andy Reid (and now Doug Pederson), probably happening in places like Cincinnati as well. 

 People think bringing in a new coaching staff and scheme would be seamless and would be a long-term solution. And they could be 

right. It could also prolong the agony, if it doesn't work out.

   All coaches have cliches and coach speak, so Pagano is not alone in that regard. Let's just see how this year turns out. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. If so, I would hope distain for Pagano turns into respect.

 

I'm starting to hate being that guy who is anti-pagano but to counter some of your points:

1. anyone who wanted to fire Pete Carroll or Dan Quinn after bringing there teams to the Super Bowl, is just plain ridiculous.

2. The Reason we fired Jim Caldwell after he brought us to a Super Bowl and only having one bad season the previous two had 10+ wins  was that we wanted someone with better defensive skills, and We have received a couple years of relying on Lucks arm, like how we used to rely on Peyton's and no reliable defense.

3. After let's call it 4 season's (not counting the season he was sick) and numerous changes in position coaches and Coordinators I don't believe in his ability to hire/keep coaches to improve/develop the team.

[Defjamz26]

 

I won't even write much.     I'm pretty much going to post his bio.

 

It's an easy and very impressive read.      Chudzinski has a terrific resume'.     The Colts are lucky to have him.  

 

If/when Pagano gets fired,  if the new HC wants to bring in his own OC,  I don't think Chud will have to wait long to get hired.      He's very good at his job.

 

His work with the Colts and Browns (two stints) and Panthers and other stops are all noted.    I encourage people here to read it and learn.

 

http://www.colts.com/team/coaches/Rob-Chudzinski/0c83c098-46cf-46fd-8cd0-d650a9cba7c0

I know and remember chuds history and imo you are over selling how good he is/was. He is not awful but like Chuck his game planning is very hit and miss. On the misses, he often like Chuck adjusts too late or not correctly. Not saying they are scrubs as coaches but like players, they are expected to improve. So being critical as fans should be expected when the schematic adjustments continue to be out maneuvered by clever coaching from the opposition.

 

Also the Panthers and Newton got much better as soon as he left. Newton still has a tendency to regress back to sloppy mechanics, but he didn't win MVP until after Chud left. And he did it without his top WR.

 

The problem with Chud is that he's another OC who doesn't play to Luck's strengths and simplify the game for him. That is on Pagano now. 3 diff OCs and we've seen the same offense for 5 years

 

 

*

[Roger]

He may do better this year.  Let's all give him a chance.

[colts2dasuperbowl]

I was never sold on Pagano, but can you really blame him?

The defense were injured all the time since he became the coach of the Colts.

 

I just wish Pagano gets fired this year so we can bring in Jim Harbaugh. Luck needs QB whisperer like Jim Harbaugh or Jon Gruden.

 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, colts2dasuperbowl said:

I was never sold on Pagano, but can you really blame him?

The defense were injured all the time since he became the coach of the Colts.

 

I just wish Pagano gets fired this year so we can bring in Jim Harbaugh. Luck needs QB whisperer like Jim Harbaugh or Jon Gruden.

 

Just what makes you think Jim Harbaugh would leave Michigan?  He has his dream job and can run the show without anyone over his head. He is not going anywhere.

As far as Gruden?/  He likes the camera too much to leave his dream job either.

[Jason_]

5 hours ago, colts2dasuperbowl said:

I was never sold on Pagano, but can you really blame him?

The defense were injured all the time since he became the coach of the Colts.

 

I just wish Pagano gets fired this year so we can bring in Jim Harbaugh. Luck needs QB whisperer like Jim Harbaugh or Jon Gruden.

 

 

Nah, Luck needs Gary Kubiak. That combination would be lethal. 

[Peterk2011]

15 hours ago, colts2dasuperbowl said:

I was never sold on Pagano, but can you really blame him?

The defense were injured all the time since he became the coach of the Colts.

 

I just wish Pagano gets fired this year so we can bring in Jim Harbaugh. Luck needs QB whisperer like Jim Harbaugh or Jon Gruden.

 

Jon Gruden? Really? You want a carreer 0.500 coach, who won a ring with Dungy-s team, and done nothing other than that? The guy has never built his own team. Never. Not counting that SB year, he was a below 0.500 carreer coach. And he coached capable rosters.... And this guy's been a media darling for the last decade, instead of being and working in football locker rooms. His knowledge of the game may be 10+ years behind.

 

You want THIS guy over Pagano, who is a 49-31 coach, who built his own team and went to the AFC final with HIS OWN team, just to see his team to be plagued by injuries and lack of talent infusion in the next 2 years, but still finish at 0.500? I'm not defending Pagano, but questioning you are being serious. ;)

 

(Harbaugh is a different animal, but he won't leave his alma mater any soon.)

[Susie Q]

On 8/21/2017 at 3:58 PM, Colton Stenger said:

Is it just me or is anyone else already tired of Pagano and his complaining. He can't blame his GM anymore so he's looking for a new scapegoat to cover his butt, he's a defensive coach with a consistently bad defense and has made poor hirings for offensive coordinator (not counting Arians) and after his last rant blaming his young players for there injuries and lack of production just amazes me, with that attitude he is gonna lose the locker room. I do think Ballard has improved the defense and offense (the addition of Mack at Rb is promising) but I do believe we will not improve as a team until we have a real leader at Head Coach, I don't know who that is but I trust Ballard to make smart decisions moving forward.

^^^ AGREE 100%

[Peterk2011]

On 2017. 08. 22. at 5:22 AM, Superman said:

And that's a big part of my criticism of Chud. He relies too much on Luck's outstanding ability to make plays, but doesn't make the game easy for Luck, his receivers and backs, and especially the OL, which has been either devoid of talent or mostly young guys who aren't ready to lock down an NFL pass rush yet. But when Hasselbeck, or even Freeman and Lindley, were the QBs, the offense stressed getting the ball out quickly. With Freeman, they mixed in some shots down the field and put the defense on notice. That 2015 Week 17 coaching job is one of the reasons I had high hopes for the Colts last season. Maximize strengths, minimize weaknesses. They do it well unless Luck is the QB, and that's just crazy to me. 

 

I read all your stuff Superman. I found those posts interesting and well written, and I agreed with most you wrote. But there is a thing that bothers me.

 

We are not elite, professional trainers like Chud and his guys are. We are just "chair experts" (well, at least that's what I am, not talking about you), but even we see these problems. And I'm positive that these are indeed problems, not delusions. So I have to assume, that Chud, a professional is well aware of this problem too. And here is my question, from clearly logical standpoint. If I was a professional, being aware of a problem, there is no way I wouldn't have done something to fix it. So why Chud didn't? He has the knowledge, he has those plays in his head, because he's done it with Hassie, Freeman, Tolzien. So why does he forget about this stuff when Luck is under center? I'm wondering if it's really Chud? We all know Luck has more freedom behind the LOS than any of the other guys mentioned. What if its Luck? What if he receives multiple plays at a time, one for this and one for that, and it's Luck who has the tendency to forget about the short, quick plays and go with the longer, deeper ones? 

 

Luck himself, and Chud's been talking about the next step many times. They alway speak of cutting down mental mistakes, and something like "take what the game gives you". The latter which intrigues me. What does this mean? I can translate this to: "don't force the ball deep, check it down more". Which is excactly what we want. What's your thoughts?

 

(p.s.: I DID see plenty of times Luck ignoring the checkdown guy and go to the guy deeper in the field, even if the guy deep was in tight coverage, and the guy close to him was clear. So he indeed forcing the ball down. He's forced it much more in his first few years than recently. Actually, he's been forcing it much less in 2016 than before. And this was Chud's first year. He was still doing it, but in a less extent than before. So what if it's a developmental process the 2 guys are working on?)

 

[Defjamz26]

And that's a big part of my criticism of Chud. He relies too much on Luck's outstanding ability to make plays, but doesn't make the game easy for Luck, his receivers and backs, and especially the OL, which has been either devoid of talent or mostly young guys who aren't ready to lock down an NFL pass rush yet. But when Hasselbeck, or even Freeman and Lindley, were the QBs, the offense stressed getting the ball out quickly. With Freeman, they mixed in some shots down the field and put the defense on notice. That 2015 Week 17 coaching job is one of the reasons I had high hopes for the Colts last season. Maximize strengths, minimize weaknesses. They do it well unless Luck is the QB, and that's just crazy to me. 

 

I read all your stuff Superman. I found those posts interesting and well written, and I agreed with most you wrote. But there is a thing that bothers me.

 

We are not elite, professional trainers like Chud and his guys are. We are just "chair experts" (well, at least that's what I am, not talking about you), but even we see these problems. And I'm positive that these are indeed problems, not delusions. So I have to assume, that Chud, a professional is well aware of this problem too. And here is my question, from clearly logical standpoint. If I was a professional, being aware of a problem, there is no way I wouldn't have done something to fix it. So why Chud didn't? He has the knowledge, he has those plays in his head, because he's done it with Hassie, Freeman, Tolzien. So why does he forget about this stuff when Luck is under center? I'm wondering if it's really Chud? We all know Luck has more freedom behind the LOS than any of the other guys mentioned. What if its Luck? What if he receives multiple plays at a time, one for this and one for that, and it's Luck who has the tendency to forget about the short, quick plays and go with the longer, deeper ones? 

 

Luck himself, and Chud's been talking about the next step many times. They alway speak of cutting down mental mistakes, and something like "take what the game gives you". The latter which intrigues me. What does this mean? I can translate this to: "don't force the ball deep, check it down more". Which is excactly what we want. What's your thoughts?

 

(p.s.: I DID see plenty of times Luck ignoring the checkdown guy and go to the guy deeper in the field, even if the guy deep was in tight coverage, and the guy close to him was clear. So he indeed forcing the ball down. He's forced it much more in his first few years than recently. Actually, he's been forcing it much less in 2016 than before. And this was Chud's first year. He was still doing it, but in a less extent than before. So what if it's a developmental process the 2 guys are working on?)

 

 

That's coaching though, in reference to the last part. A stronger coach (like Gruden. Just using him as an example) would be all in his *, for missing easy underneath throws and forcing the ball down the field. But at the same time, Gruden would have a playbook that emphasized short passing as most of the options anyways so it'd be hard to see Luck forcibly chuck it deep.

 

 

*

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

I read all your stuff Superman. I found those posts interesting and well written, and I agreed with most you wrote. But there is a thing that bothers me.

 

We are not elite, professional trainers like Chud and his guys are. We are just "chair experts" (well, at least that's what I am, not talking about you), but even we see these problems. And I'm positive that these are indeed problems, not delusions. So I have to assume, that Chud, a professional is well aware of this problem too. And here is my question, from clearly logical standpoint. If I was a professional, being aware of a problem, there is no way I wouldn't have done something to fix it. So why Chud didn't? He has the knowledge, he has those plays in his head, because he's done it with Hassie, Freeman, Tolzien. So why does he forget about this stuff when Luck is under center? I'm wondering if it's really Chud? We all know Luck has more freedom behind the LOS than any of the other guys mentioned. What if its Luck? What if he receives multiple plays at a time, one for this and one for that, and it's Luck who has the tendency to forget about the short, quick plays and go with the longer, deeper ones? 

 

Luck himself, and Chud's been talking about the next step many times. They alway speak of cutting down mental mistakes, and something like "take what the game gives you". The latter which intrigues me. What does this mean? I can translate this to: "don't force the ball deep, check it down more". Which is excactly what we want. What's your thoughts?

 

(p.s.: I DID see plenty of times Luck ignoring the checkdown guy and go to the guy deeper in the field, even if the guy deep was in tight coverage, and the guy close to him was clear. So he indeed forcing the ball down. He's forced it much more in his first few years than recently. Actually, he's been forcing it much less in 2016 than before. And this was Chud's first year. He was still doing it, but in a less extent than before. So what if it's a developmental process the 2 guys are working on?)

 

 

Part of it is Luck. I did a breakdown of some plays in the Raider game, and at least two plays were partly on Luck for not hitting a wide open Dorsett across the middle, or not checking to a hot route when Rogers had no defender within ten yards of him. Luck is still a young QB, and despite the lofty expectations everyone has, we need to view him as someone whose game is still growing. I'm not worried about Luck, but I do think it's critical that he receives receive good coaching. 

 

What's NOT on Luck is the design of a lot of our pass plays. You mention checkdowns, but it's important to remember the difference between a checkdown and a hot route or quick hitter. A quick hitter means the QB gets the ball out fast for an easy completion. A checkdown means that if your first, second and sometimes third read isn't open, then you dump it to a open guy underneath. A checkdown requires good protection, or misdirection to slow down the pass rush. 

 

So while Luck does force the issue sometimes, which pays off more than it hurts us, what I really want to see is passing concepts that get the ball out faster, lets the receivers pick up YAC, and doesn't ask the OL to do something we all know it struggles with. 

 

And there are other things, like our lack of called screen passes and the undisciplined way we run them, that are not about the QB at all. The position coaches and QC coaches need to iron out the wrinkles, and the OC needs to call more of them, IMO.

[ColtStrong]

When the Colts win in the preseason, then I worry. The Browns are 3-0 right now.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:08 PM, Defjamz26 said:

 

Also the Panthers and Newton got much better as soon as he left. Newton still has a tendency to regress back to sloppy mechanics, but he didn't win MVP until after Chud left. And he did it without his top WR.

 

The problem with Chud is that he's another OC who doesn't play to Luck's strengths and simplify the game for him. That is on Pagano now. 3 diff OCs and we've seen the same offense for 5 years

 

 

*

 

???  List Luck's strengths that Chud is not utilizing, please?

I disagree with this to a notable degree...  I'll start with a couple items from my side-

 

Chudzinski has a modified playbook, with concepts learned from/with Norv Turner (San Diego and Cleveland), who has his own version of Don Coryell's vertical pass offense.  (Air Coryell)  Andrew Luck can operate that scheme not only better than any QB we have had on the roster since Peyton Manning, but also better than most other QB's playing in the NFL in recent years.  Here are some stats I once saw -

 

Luck was >52% on passes greater than 20 yards downfield!

Colts at one time was leading the league in plays gaining 20 yards or more (52), and 48 of those 52 were via the pass.  I'll stop here and wait for some of your supporting statement for your claim...

 

23 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

I read all your stuff Superman. I found those posts interesting and well written, and I agreed with most you wrote. But there is a thing that bothers me.

 

We are not elite, professional trainers like Chud and his guys are. We are just "chair experts" (well, at least that's what I am, not talking about you), but even we see these problems. And I'm positive that these are indeed problems, not delusions. So I have to assume, that Chud, a professional is well aware of this problem too. And here is my question, from clearly logical standpoint. If I was a professional, being aware of a problem, there is no way I wouldn't have done something to fix it. So why Chud didn't? He has the knowledge, he has those plays in his head, because he's done it with Hassie, Freeman, Tolzien. So why does he forget about this stuff when Luck is under center? I'm wondering if it's really Chud? We all know Luck has more freedom behind the LOS than any of the other guys mentioned. What if its Luck? What if he receives multiple plays at a time, one for this and one for that, and it's Luck who has the tendency to forget about the short, quick plays and go with the longer, deeper ones? 

 

Luck himself, and Chud's been talking about the next step many times. They alway speak of cutting down mental mistakes, and something like "take what the game gives you". The latter which intrigues me. What does this mean? I can translate this to: "don't force the ball deep, check it down more". Which is excactly what we want. What's your thoughts?

 

(p.s.: I DID see plenty of times Luck ignoring the checkdown guy and go to the guy deeper in the field, even if the guy deep was in tight coverage, and the guy close to him was clear. So he indeed forcing the ball down. He's forced it much more in his first few years than recently. Actually, he's been forcing it much less in 2016 than before. And this was Chud's first year. He was still doing it, but in a less extent than before. So what if it's a developmental process the 2 guys are working on?)

 

 

Luck can, and does, do things those QB's cannot. Period.  Now, I'll agree that sometimes, the talent of the rest of the team doesn't quite match up to Lucks strengths. I understand those that want to reduce his downfield passing  and give up lots of plays on chunk yards and methodically dink and dunk down the field reducing his exposure to getting hit.  A lot of Lucks great plays come from sliding around the pocket and hitting guys in tight windows deep, but get knocked down in the process. (his injury suffered a couple years ago in Tennessee was a scramble out to the right where he connected on a pass downfield, but was shoved down as he released it.  He landed on that right arm awkward... (remember Hass patting him on breast bone and Luck wincing?) and now... recovering from surgery on it 2 years later.  I get that. Peeps want 1 step slants, 3 step swing passes, quick bubble screens...

 

Last December, the Colts started their 35th different offensive line combination in front of Luck. We did invest heavily in O line choices, gave people opportunities and most failed to meet expectations. So Luck uses his strength (see above) to move around the pocket keeping eyes downfield and making plays. That's Andrew, look downfield, move/scramble as necessary (often 'holding the ball' more than he should) hit the tight windows.

 

When a game plan is worked out for an opponent, the OC, and QB are together.  The advance scout team has done their work, and Chud and Luck decide what plays will be effective for them. IE: what the opponent is vulnerable to, which plays he's most confident in, which plays he doesn't like running, and which plays he feels his teammates might not be ready to run.   The QB input reduces the OC playbook that week by as much as 25%. The scout team info / film work reduces it more, etc...

 

This begs the question, why doesn't the most cerebral and intelligent QB in the NFL read pre-play and make an audible to those "quick hitters? that folks want?"  I wonder how many of them were even installed in the game plan and practiced (situational football?) It's not just on Chud, and I'll bet other O coaches have some input to the game plan as well.  But OC/QB combo is the main ingredient each week, and it is not the same recipe from week to week - the opponent creates a need for alterations.

 

The plan will be different (even planning for the same team) when Tolzien sits in on that Game Plan meeting instead...  Or Morris... Hasselbeck, Freeman, Whitehurst, etc...

 

I think Luck and Chud will involve more efficient plays, Luck will check to them nore often, and they will (with Philbin) get an O line (consistency with talent) that allows the Chud / Luck strengths to continue to be used as well. This combo of coaches/players is still fresh somewhat, and everyone is growing into refining their part.

 

I, and I believe Irsay, is looking into just how everyone morphs together to bring a better product together on the field.  The W's will take care of themselves.

 

[ThorstenDenmark]

Chuck Pagano is a defensive minded coach... well... dont think so, cause the defence sucks

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 minutes ago, ThorstenDenmark said:

Chuck Pagano is a defensive minded coach... well... dont think so, cause the defence sucks

 

Deja Vu all over again?

 

{ ...Tony Dungy }

[Defjamz26]

 

Also the Panthers and Newton got much better as soon as he left. Newton still has a tendency to regress back to sloppy mechanics, but he didn't win MVP until after Chud left. And he did it without his top WR.

 

The problem with Chud is that he's another OC who doesn't play to Luck's strengths and simplify the game for him. That is on Pagano now. 3 diff OCs and we've seen the same offense for 5 years

 

 

*

 

???  List Luck's strengths that Chud is not utilizing, please?

I disagree with this to a notable degree...  I'll start with a couple items from my side-

 

Chudzinski has a modified playbook, with concepts learned from/with Norv Turner (San Diego and Cleveland), who has his own version of Don Coryell's vertical pass offense.  (Air Coryell)  Andrew Luck can operate that scheme not only better than any QB we have had on the roster since Peyton Manning, but also better than most other QB's playing in the NFL in recent years.  Here are some stats I once saw -

 

Luck was >52% on passes greater than 20 yards downfield!

Colts at one time was leading the league in plays gaining 20 yards or more (52), and 48 of those 52 were via the pass.  I'll stop here and wait for some of your supporting statement for your claim...

 

 

I read all your stuff Superman. I found those posts interesting and well written, and I agreed with most you wrote. But there is a thing that bothers me.

 

We are not elite, professional trainers like Chud and his guys are. We are just "chair experts" (well, at least that's what I am, not talking about you), but even we see these problems. And I'm positive that these are indeed problems, not delusions. So I have to assume, that Chud, a professional is well aware of this problem too. And here is my question, from clearly logical standpoint. If I was a professional, being aware of a problem, there is no way I wouldn't have done something to fix it. So why Chud didn't? He has the knowledge, he has those plays in his head, because he's done it with Hassie, Freeman, Tolzien. So why does he forget about this stuff when Luck is under center? I'm wondering if it's really Chud? We all know Luck has more freedom behind the LOS than any of the other guys mentioned. What if its Luck? What if he receives multiple plays at a time, one for this and one for that, and it's Luck who has the tendency to forget about the short, quick plays and go with the longer, deeper ones? 

 

Luck himself, and Chud's been talking about the next step many times. They alway speak of cutting down mental mistakes, and something like "take what the game gives you". The latter which intrigues me. What does this mean? I can translate this to: "don't force the ball deep, check it down more". Which is excactly what we want. What's your thoughts?

 

(p.s.: I DID see plenty of times Luck ignoring the checkdown guy and go to the guy deeper in the field, even if the guy deep was in tight coverage, and the guy close to him was clear. So he indeed forcing the ball down. He's forced it much more in his first few years than recently. Actually, he's been forcing it much less in 2016 than before. And this was Chud's first year. He was still doing it, but in a less extent than before. So what if it's a developmental process the 2 guys are working on?)

 

 

Luck can, and does, do things those QB's cannot. Period.  Now, I'll agree that sometimes, the talent of the rest of the team doesn't quite match up to Lucks strengths. I understand those that want to reduce his downfield passing  and give up lots of plays on chunk yards and methodically dink and dunk down the field reducing his exposure to getting hit.  A lot of Lucks great plays come from sliding around the pocket and hitting guys in tight windows deep, but get knocked down in the process. (his injury suffered a couple years ago in Tennessee was a scramble out to the right where he connected on a pass downfield, but was shoved down as he released it.  He landed on that right arm awkward... (remember Hass patting him on breast bone and Luck wincing?) and now... recovering from surgery on it 2 years later.  I get that. Peeps want 1 step slants, 3 step swing passes, quick bubble screens...

 

Last December, the Colts started their 35th different offensive line combination in front of Luck. We did invest heavily in O line choices, gave people opportunities and most failed to meet expectations. So Luck uses his strength (see above) to move around the pocket keeping eyes downfield and making plays. That's Andrew, look downfield, move/scramble as necessary (often 'holding the ball' more than he should) hit the tight windows.

 

When a game plan is worked out for an opponent, the OC, and QB are together.  The advance scout team has done their work, and Chud and Luck decide what plays will be effective for them. IE: what the opponent is vulnerable to, which plays he's most confident in, which plays he doesn't like running, and which plays he feels his teammates might not be ready to run.   The QB input reduces the OC playbook that week by as much as 25%. The scout team info / film work reduces it more, etc...

 

This begs the question, why doesn't the most cerebral and intelligent QB in the NFL read pre-play and make an audible to those "quick hitters? that folks want?"  I wonder how many of them were even installed in the game plan and practiced (situational football?) It's not just on Chud, and I'll bet other O coaches have some input to the game plan as well.  But OC/QB combo is the main ingredient each week, and it is not the same recipe from week to week - the opponent creates a need for alterations.

 

The plan will be different (even planning for the same team) when Tolzien sits in on that Game Plan meeting instead...  Or Morris... Hasselbeck, Freeman, Whitehurst, etc...

 

I think Luck and Chud will involve more efficient plays, Luck will check to them nore often, and they will (with Philbin) get an O line (consistency with talent) that allows the Chud / Luck strengths to continue to be used as well. This combo of coaches/players is still fresh somewhat, and everyone is growing into refining their part.

 

I, and I believe Irsay, is looking into just how everyone morphs together to bring a better product together on the field.  The W's will take care of themselves.

 

 

Luck has struggled in vertical offenses since Arians. Yes, he's got a great deep ball but he always has high turnover numbers that can hurt the team. Not to mention he can hold on to the ball too long anyways. Luck excels when he has quick options coming out the slot across the middle of the field. Short-intermediate routes where a guy is less likely to be in double coverage is where he makes his money. Maybe strengths was the wrong term. He would be better suited, in a more prototypical WCO. The vertical offenses have done nothing but make him turn the ball over, get him injured, and make the game harder than it needs to be for him.

 

 

*

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Luck has struggled in vertical offenses since Arians. Yes, he's got a great deep ball but he always has high turnover numbers that can hurt the team. Not to mention he can hold on to the ball too long anyways. Luck excels when he has quick options coming out the slot across the middle of the field. Short-intermediate routes where a guy is less likely to be in double coverage is where he makes his money. Maybe strengths was the wrong term. He would be better suited, in a more prototypical WCO. The vertical offenses have done nothing but make him turn the ball over, get him injured, and make the game harder than it needs to be for him.

 

 

*

 

Let me just say dig routes and the like are in the formations and often guys are open (people have seen it live and Superman has discovered it on film) yet Luck still tries to make 'the downfield pass'.  Arians before, and i'm sure Chud  has as well, told Luck take the downfield shot, when it is there.  if it isn't developing or is defended well take the checkdown or chuck it out of bounds and live to play another down. Don't risk the turnover.

 

However, Luck also excels in moving around in the pocket extending plays, so he doesn't do that as much as we'd all like. Also, this short routes are covered as o line cn't protect, so defenses play closer to the line and their receiver knowing Luck doesn't have time for those receivers to get separation. and if he hits them, the YAC is low.  You need to have a good running game, few or no offensive penalty's, and an ability to go over the top effectively for the short efficient game to be able to produce 12-15 yard drives for scores time after time after time.

 

Face it, fans of the WCO will says it's to Lucks strength, but many Stats say the vertical game is truly his strength.  But needs to be setup and executed better, by the O line, and Luck himself.

 

Here's a nice 5 step back shoulder fade play only elite QB's like Luck can make (not a slant or bubble screen)-

 

 

I'd like to see more of a hybrid, but not Pep Hamilton's 'No Coast Offense' hybrid. That, and the play calling in it, was a disaster.

 

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Luck has struggled in vertical offenses since Arians. Yes, he's got a great deep ball but he always has high turnover numbers that can hurt the team. Not to mention he can hold on to the ball too long anyways. Luck excels when he has quick options coming out the slot across the middle of the field. Short-intermediate routes where a guy is less likely to be in double coverage is where he makes his money. Maybe strengths was the wrong term. He would be better suited, in a more prototypical WCO. The vertical offenses have done nothing but make him turn the ball over, get him injured, and make the game harder than it needs to be for him.

 

Luck has never struggled in a vertical offense. Actually, when going deep, he is one of the least turnover prone quarterback in the league, including the best. Where he seemingly tends to brainfart is just the opposite, those middle-to-short passes, which he mostly forcing, and in a much less extent screws up the timing.

 

Still, no matter how effective he is in the vertical game, giving up the quick passing game is like giving up running the ball. The problem is not only those few not gained yards what a running game brings on the table, but much more being one sided. If an offense does not run the ball (or does not run well enough) or does not call short passing plays, the opponent defense will quickly adjusts, and focus on defending the vertical game. And the vertical game will be much harder to execute. The Colts playbook need rushing plays, and need those short passing concepts (and execute them well) that Superman was referring to. I'm just wandering why we play so few of them (and why not effective when we actually do it), when we have wittnessed that both, the OC and the QB are very capable in this territory as well. (Luck played a LOT of "dink and dunk" in college. It was actually his - Stanford's - trademark, not the vertical game back then.)

[Defjamz26]

 

Luck has struggled in vertical offenses since Arians. Yes, he's got a great deep ball but he always has high turnover numbers that can hurt the team. Not to mention he can hold on to the ball too long anyways. Luck excels when he has quick options coming out the slot across the middle of the field. Short-intermediate routes where a guy is less likely to be in double coverage is where he makes his money. Maybe strengths was the wrong term. He would be better suited, in a more prototypical WCO. The vertical offenses have done nothing but make him turn the ball over, get him injured, and make the game harder than it needs to be for him.

 

Luck has never struggled in a vertical offense. Actually, when going deep, he is one of the least turnover prone quarterback in the league, including the best. Where he seemingly tends to brainfart is just the opposite, those middle-to-short passes, which he mostly forcing, and in a much less extent screws up the timing.

 

Still, no matter how effective he is in the vertical game, giving up the quick passing game is like giving up running the ball. The problem is not only those few not gained yards what a running game brings on the table, but much more being one sided. If an offense does not run the ball (or does not run well enough) or does not call short passing plays, the opponent defense will quickly adjusts, and focus on defending the vertical game. And the vertical game will be much harder to execute. The Colts playbook need rushing plays, and need those short passing concepts (and execute them well) that Superman was referring to. I'm just wandering why we play so few of them (and why not effective when we actually do it), when we have wittnessed that both, the OC and the QB are very capable in this territory as well. (Luck played a LOT of "dink and dunk" in college. It was actually his - Stanford's - trademark, not the vertical game back then.)

 

I'm glad you brought that up because I was going to. Yeah he carved people up at Stanford with the short passing game. We know he's got the arm to go downfield but he really doesn't need to. It requires too much. But even though he doesn't take the check down sometimes, that's on coaching. Give him a playbook with mostly short passing concepts. Call slant plays where every route is 10-15 yards max. There's too many options for downfield plays in all of the play books he's had so far. I really don't think Luck is a bad decision maker. It's just the game is being made too complicated for him and He overthinks. They haven't made it easy for him and that's a coaching flaw. Brady can throw it downfield but he never has too because he has so many short-intermediate routes that are easy to complete.

 

 

*

[Superman]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

???  List Luck's strengths that Chud is not utilizing, please?

I disagree with this to a notable degree...  I'll start with a couple items from my side-

 

Chudzinski has a modified playbook, with concepts learned from/with Norv Turner (San Diego and Cleveland), who has his own version of Don Coryell's vertical pass offense.  (Air Coryell)  Andrew Luck can operate that scheme not only better than any QB we have had on the roster since Peyton Manning, but also better than most other QB's playing in the NFL in recent years.  Here are some stats I once saw -

 

Luck was >52% on passes greater than 20 yards downfield!

Colts at one time was leading the league in plays gaining 20 yards or more (52), and 48 of those 52 were via the pass.  I'll stop here and wait for some of your supporting statement for your claim...

 

 

Luck can, and does, do things those QB's cannot. Period.  Now, I'll agree that sometimes, the talent of the rest of the team doesn't quite match up to Lucks strengths. I understand those that want to reduce his downfield passing  and give up lots of plays on chunk yards and methodically dink and dunk down the field reducing his exposure to getting hit.  A lot of Lucks great plays come from sliding around the pocket and hitting guys in tight windows deep, but get knocked down in the process. (his injury suffered a couple years ago in Tennessee was a scramble out to the right where he connected on a pass downfield, but was shoved down as he released it.  He landed on that right arm awkward... (remember Hass patting him on breast bone and Luck wincing?) and now... recovering from surgery on it 2 years later.  I get that. Peeps want 1 step slants, 3 step swing passes, quick bubble screens...

 

Last December, the Colts started their 35th different offensive line combination in front of Luck. We did invest heavily in O line choices, gave people opportunities and most failed to meet expectations. So Luck uses his strength (see above) to move around the pocket keeping eyes downfield and making plays. That's Andrew, look downfield, move/scramble as necessary (often 'holding the ball' more than he should) hit the tight windows.

 

When a game plan is worked out for an opponent, the OC, and QB are together.  The advance scout team has done their work, and Chud and Luck decide what plays will be effective for them. IE: what the opponent is vulnerable to, which plays he's most confident in, which plays he doesn't like running, and which plays he feels his teammates might not be ready to run.   The QB input reduces the OC playbook that week by as much as 25%. The scout team info / film work reduces it more, etc...

 

This begs the question, why doesn't the most cerebral and intelligent QB in the NFL read pre-play and make an audible to those "quick hitters? that folks want?"  I wonder how many of them were even installed in the game plan and practiced (situational football?) It's not just on Chud, and I'll bet other O coaches have some input to the game plan as well.  But OC/QB combo is the main ingredient each week, and it is not the same recipe from week to week - the opponent creates a need for alterations.

 

The plan will be different (even planning for the same team) when Tolzien sits in on that Game Plan meeting instead...  Or Morris... Hasselbeck, Freeman, Whitehurst, etc...

 

I think Luck and Chud will involve more efficient plays, Luck will check to them nore often, and they will (with Philbin) get an O line (consistency with talent) that allows the Chud / Luck strengths to continue to be used as well. This combo of coaches/players is still fresh somewhat, and everyone is growing into refining their part.

 

I, and I believe Irsay, is looking into just how everyone morphs together to bring a better product together on the field.  The W's will take care of themselves.

 

 

This is all good stuff. Luck is actually perfect for the Coryell offense, from his ability to extend plays while routes open up to his toughness to stand in a noisy pocket (or none at all) and still deliver accurately down field, and of course he has the arm strength to make the throws even from a compromised platform (remember the 40 yard TD pass against the Bengals where Luck is getting tripped, but still hits Moncrief perfectly over the shoulder in the end zone?)

 

To me, that's part of the problem. His coaches know that he excels at it, and they begin to rely on his ability to bail out the offense with these ridiculous plays that he makes. And he's been doing it since he was a rookie, when he was the most effective downfield passer in the league, with a terrible OL. 

 

I don't think the issue is that the coaches don't utilize his strengths; they overutilize them, IMO. The issue is that they don't minimize the weaknesses of the most challenged part of the offensive roster, the OL. I don't want to dink and dunk all day, essentially neutering Luck's playmaking ability, but I am willing to sacrifice some explosiveness for the sake of efficiency, as it will take pressure off of the OL and reduce the number of hits Luck takes.

 

Doing so would also spread the field horizontally, stressing the defense in another dimension. That opens up the run game -- if we're ever able to run block consistently against a 6 man front -- and it might lead to the defense compromising their deep coverage, in which case they get roasted by one of the best deep passers in the league. 

 

There are other things we can do to take pressure off of the OL, like bootlegs and designed rollouts, which take advantage of Luck's ability to run and promote quick half field reads. When the defensive front has to contain to the outside, they can't come up the field as aggressively. The Luck to Gore play against the Titans took advantage of that principle in a different way, but it's the same concept -- when you move the QB or engage in effective misdirection, the pass rush slows down significantly. 

 

You also make a good point that the game plan installation is influenced by that week's starting QB, so the Luck gameplan will be different from the Hasselbeck or Tolzien gameplan, and that's reasonable. But at the same time, the OC has to be the one to stress the core concepts of his offense. Chud's philosophy is congruent with Luck's mentality, so there's no one in that install meeting saying 'we need to make sure we get the ball out quickly so the QB doesn't get battered.' 

 

And then there's the technical stuff that's not on the QB: execution on screen plays, cutting the edge on slants (Luck gets a ton of short passes tipped by DL, and doesn't throw several more because of not having clear throwing lanes), etc. That's on the coaching staff, from the OC (who is the deputy general of the offense) to the position coaches, to correct, but we've had these issues since 2012. At least Chud is calling a lot of screens right now; even though we seem to get penalized every time, hopefully the staff is stressing the corrections so they'll finally get it fixed.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Luck has never struggled in a vertical offense. Actually, when going deep, he is one of the least turnover prone quarterback in the league, including the best. Where he seemingly tends to brainfart is just the opposite, those middle-to-short passes, which he mostly forcing, and in a much less extent screws up the timing.

 

Still, no matter how effective he is in the vertical game, giving up the quick passing game is like giving up running the ball. The problem is not only those few not gained yards what a running game brings on the table, but much more being one sided. If an offense does not run the ball (or does not run well enough) or does not call short passing plays, the opponent defense will quickly adjusts, and focus on defending the vertical game. And the vertical game will be much harder to execute. The Colts playbook need rushing plays, and need those short passing concepts (and execute them well) that Superman was referring to. I'm just wandering why we play so few of them (and why not effective when we actually do it), when we have wittnessed that both, the OC and the QB are very capable in this territory as well. (Luck played a LOT of "dink and dunk" in college. It was actually his - Stanford's - trademark, not the vertical game back then.)

 

If Chud and Luck cannot modify this scheme more toward a middle ground that Superman illustrates incorporating into the scheme, then rather them than go to WCO, I's like to see a change to the Erhardt-Perkins system, quite frankly.

 

Let's see what 2017 present, in productivity, efficiency, scoring, and finally W's.  Oh, and of course, the QB's health during and at the end of the season/post season.

[crazycolt1]

23 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

That's coaching though, in reference to the last part. A stronger coach (like Gruden. Just using him as an example) would be all in his *, for missing easy underneath throws and forcing the ball down the field. But at the same time, Gruden would have a playbook that emphasized short passing as most of the options anyways so it'd be hard to see Luck forcibly chuck it deep.

 

 

*

Using Gruden as an example is not a good idea. He would be too busy cheezing for the camera.

[CoachLite]

I think the Colts (incl. coaches and the team) depend too much on Andrew Luck's skills, and Andrew tries to be the hero too often. That can't continue for Luck to be successful with the Colts.

[CoachLite]

IMO, most coaches know the Xs and Os of football very well. That is insufficient to be HC, however. The reason they get paid big bucks has to do with the complexity of matching player personalities and skills with the strategy and culture of the team as a whole. That is (maybe was) a problem for the Colts - we'll see. IMO, the culture is (or was) dysfunctional.

 

Seems to me that many contributors in this forum try to blame one coach, GM, player, or another, and that misses the mark completely.

[Indeee]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:11 PM, Superman said:

Pagano can't win. People call him soft and complain because he never calls players out when they don't play well. Then he engages in some relatively tough talk -- for him, not compared to the rest of the league; this is the kind of stuff coaches say routinely in the NFL -- and now he's whining and scapegoating.

 

Double standard. 

 

Just say you hate Pagano no matter what, stake your position, and be done with it. You don't have to make up reasons for it. 

I Agree with your assessment of double standard as I personally always wanted Pagano to be more intense and deliberate with accountability towards the players and when he tries to be people complain. With that being said I like Pagano, however something is amiss here. I'm starting to believe that your opening line that" Pagano can't win" is what is in play here but not necessarily in the context you we're speaking of. I think the guy is snake bit. You can try to point at any reason/s out there but overall it just is what it is. Sometimes in life people who have all the tools needed for success just can't find it, leaving outsiders scratching their heads. Find and fix one excuse, two more pop up, etc.. This has been the Pagano years with the Colts. Pagano needs to be released unfortunately for football reasons concerning this team so Luck's career is wasted any longer and most of the staff he has assembled. It's not something I as a fan would want, but I think it has to be done and ultimately will be done and in doing so I believe Pagano will be judged/remembered unfairly. Not that he has been a perfect HC by any means but fans and media only see in terms of wins and losses, failure and success. Whatever keeps derailing the Colts is becoming a moot point and I firmly believe these derailments will continue to plague the Colts until Pagano and his staff are relieved of duty.

[crazycolt1]

Like it or not Pagano is the head coach of the Colts. We can whine and cry till we are blue in the face. Irsay said Pagano will get his chance without outside interference. This over and over negative talk is old and lame at this point because Pagano is the head coach till the end of this season like it or not.

Rather than keep harping and whinng about something no one can do anything about how about letting things play out? It reads like a broken record.

If Pagano coaches well he will be extended. If he coaches bad he will be replaced. It is that simple.

[Superman]

23 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

If Chud and Luck cannot modify this scheme more toward a middle ground that Superman illustrates incorporating into the scheme, then rather them than go to WCO, I's like to see a change to the Erhardt-Perkins system, quite frankly.

 

Let's see what 2017 present, in productivity, efficiency, scoring, and finally W's.  Oh, and of course, the QB's health during and at the end of the season/post season.

 

EP is basically all of the above, depending on your strengths and the matchup. It requires a very adaptable offensive coaching staff. Chud has experience with a lot of different coaching staffs, and even in the Coryell tree there are different branches, like Norv Turner vs Bruce Arians. He ran a different offense in Carolina than he does in Indy. If he had come up with Tom Moore, rather than working for a bunch of defensive minded head coaches and a couple stints with Norv, he would probably be a really good EP coordinator. 

[colts2dasuperbowl]

On 8/25/2017 at 5:21 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Just what makes you think Jim Harbaugh would leave Michigan?  He has his dream job and can run the show without anyone over his head. He is not going anywhere.

As far as Gruden?/  He likes the camera too much to leave his dream job either.

I dont know...may be money?