Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

YOUR GM

Senior Member
  • Posts

    1,983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YOUR GM

  1. John Fox has a noted history of blunders in critical games as a head coach. He's not a bad head coach at all, but to try and use Harbaugh's short stint in SF as some kind of barometer to validate Fox's career is a monumental reach.

    Harbaugh was THE key contributor to the Niners turnaround, whereas I would credit the Broncos recent turnaround more to John Elway/Manning than anyone else... John Fox is just kinda there, along for the ride, in my opinion.

    And maybe that's just the price you have to pay, being the head coach of Peyton Manning. When you win, it's all Manning, but if you lose, it's the coaching lol

  2. Not really. Before the offseason, I wanted us to add a veteran lineman to solidify the interior. Once the team chose not to do that, I moved on.

    I also hoped the young guys could show more than what they have. We have some answers that we didn't have before the season, particularly with Thornton. It's also hard to be excited about Holmes when the staff had him benched for 75% of the season. I still think he's a solid player, but he can't help the team in street clothes.

    As of now, I think we have plenty of competition at RG, but could use another veteran. And I think we're worse at RT than expected, so it's time to do something about that.

    Hmmm, must've been someone else I'm thinking of then. I thought you felt Louis was an adequate acquisition to challenge Thornton back then, and that Holmes couldn't improve if he had legit competiiton.

    At any rate, fair points on your part. I'm not entirely sure I even subscribe to the lack of talent theory anymore, regarding our O line struggles. It was a bit of an eye-opener to see Satele move on and perform at a relatively high level for a good portion of this season. Maybe it's position coaching that's the real issue? I don't know, but this is something that they can't afford not to figure out before the start of next season. This problem is beyond old, at this point

  3. I think Mewhort is best at guard. I think he can play RT if necessary, but I'd rather optimize him on the interior. The way I look at is we need to draft a RT and let everyone else battle it out at RG. I think Holmes is the center, but give him some competition as well.

    I'm with you on Cherilus, unless he's significantly better in the playoffs. He can be a post-June 1 release, dead money in 2015 is $2.9m, and another $5.8m in 2016. Ouch, but there's no reason to pay him another $4m in 2015 if he's not going to give us consistently average RT play.

    Your perspective regarding how we move forward with the offensive line now sounds eerily similar to what I and many others were saying an off-season ago. Particularly about giving the young players competition, which you seemed to disagree with back then. Not trying to pick on you, but I have to admit I kinda laughed when I read this post from you

  4. The Bengals will try to make this game more about Jeremy Hill and their O line than about Andy Dalton. If he's forced to make more than a few plays in this game in order for them to win, they're not winning. If our offense struggles and they get their ground game in full gear, I could see the New England game happening all over again. Lets hope our offense shows up to keep them honest

  5. I would like to see a new line coach next year. I haven't seen much progression in our younger players (namely Thornton) and the blocking scheme seems flawed, in general. We're seeing the immediate impacts of quality line coaches when a change is made. Bill Calahan, Mike Munchek, Gary Kubiak (even though he's a coordinator, he obviously has extensive knowledge about blocking schemes) have all transformed their team's respective lines in a relatively short amount of time. Far less than the 3 years we've wasted collecting talent via free agency and the draft with little progress to show for it under Gilbert.

    I would like to see Alex Gibbs or someone from his coaching tree brought in as either a line coach or in a consultant role next season. He's currently employed at the same capacity with the Broncos right now

  6. They need to ditch the man blocking scheme until they get linemen who can consistently win one-on-one's. It's a dated approach to the run game that puts your linemen at an automatic disadvantage due to the gap in athletic ability between D linemen and O linemen. Defenses keep getting more and more athletic as well as sophisticated. Unless you have 2-3 elite level offensive linemen, it's foolish to expect to win head-to-heads against athletically superior competition consistently.

    Most of the successful running teams use some form of zone blocking. I think that it is the smarter brand of blocking technique, personally. It has built-in help, and allows for more cutback lanes/opportunities to break for long gains regardless of whether or not everyone executes their assignments correctly

  7. The Titans are horrible, but we needed this to boost out ego after the past few weeks. This game doesn't mean anything, so I would've liked to see more emphasis on the ground game (especially goal-line) to build some kind of continuity and chemistry with the linemen. A garbage game against a poor defense is a good time to get some live practice

  8. Let's be real about Caldwell at Indy... we were stable and professional because of MANNING, not Caldwell. In Detroit, they still have problems with selfish penalties and nonsense, as well as people like Suh and some others are in contract years. Caldwell may be a good guy, but I don't credit him with anything that happened while he was in Indy. The 2-14 season indicated what would happen to the vaunted Colts, who still had many of the same players Manning had, without Manning behind center and leading the team.

    Caldwell was a puppet while he was here. I think those 2 years away from head coaching certainly helped him gain a better understanding of the game from a coordinator perspective, but I think the main difference between Caldwell's tenure here and what he's been able to do in Detroit is the coaching staff around him. He has 2 very talented coordinators on both sides of the ball, while also having the talent to execute his scheme. Polian didn't do a good job of acquiring talent his last few years here, which became glaringly obvious once Peyton got hurt and the coaches were put in a position to actually have to win without him. Poor situational awareness and a total lack of adjustments ultimately did him in here.

    I see a lot of the same weaknesses in our current staff, to be honest. Our new QB just hasn't been hurt yet. Until he does, the wins will continue to mask the staff's obvious shortcomings, just like Peyton did for a number of years during the late Dungy/early Caldwell era

  9. Stop wasting valuable resources on a dime-a-dozen position. The run game will improve when the offensive line does. Something is broken somewhere in our system. Be it our scouting, our developing of players, or maybe just our scheme -- but something IS broken. It's not like we haven't been trying to address the line ever since Grigson has been here

  10. Adam Gase? Think it through.

    Demariyus Thmas is having an all-pro year.

    Emmanual Sanders Is having his best year by far. CJ Anderson has gone from undrafted free agent to on pace for 1,000

    Denver's overall offense has NOT declined.....and Gase, a rookie OC, is no genius....like you said Trestman was.

    Jay Cutler? Efficient?

    That makes me wonder if you watch the Bears regularly.

    Jay Cutler leads the NFL with 21 turnovers. He is NOT playing is most efficient ball of his career.

    Up here, we see them every single week. Maybe you don't. Jay has declined.

    He isn't as confident and the results are down....wins are down.... turnovers are up.

    Go back and look at the Trestman's 2nd year at all his NFL stops..If you do well one year and then fade, your scheme didn't work.

    If you are gone by your 3rd or 4th years...your scheme didn't work. .

    You have to say what you see and the record is what it is.

    I cite stats they are 'so-called stats'...I quote your words and you say I twisted them.

    I suspect you don't know Trestman's entire history and you don't like to hear that what you think isn't supported by those facts

    and that history.

    I ask you (again) to go back and look at Marc Trestman's history and see if you really think he's a genius that you'd

    hire for your team's offense.

    Because when you say that Jay Cutler is playing his most efficient ball of his career, you lose the debate

    I looked at Trestman's history, and you're exaggerating. The Gase line was me being facetious. Denver's offense has "declined" (from 1st in total offense per game last year to 4th this year and from 1st in scoring offense last year to 5th this year) in the same respect that the 1996 Niners offense "declined" in Trestman's 2nd year as OC . In case you haven't picked up on it by now, that is sarcasm. The problem lies within your definition of "declining offense." The Bears offense has declined -- fact. But you'll be hard pressed to formulate an argument backed with evidence proving that is the case with every offense Trestman has ever been involved in, ever.... Because it's not true

    I'm done talking about this. You don't like Trestman, that's fine. Your claims that he's failed in his 2nd season at every stop is total Balogna though, so you should really stop saying it until you can post the team's offensive numbers for each year in question (which you wont)

    Later

  11. You said Trestman was a genius and the Bears skill players weren't succesfull because he got here.

    That's not true. No matter how much you blame it on me for pointing it out, that's not true.

    Jay Cutler threw for 4,526 yards in 2007...He's no where near that under Trestman, even average yards per game.

    Brandon Marshall caught 118 for 1,508 in 2012...He caught 102 for 1,325 in 2007. Look at this year.

    Trestman did now make them better in his 2 years in Chicago.. The Bears main 2 skill players did not improve.

    You are stating things that are contradicted by facts.

    I'm challenging what you said and you seem offended but that's what we do here. Nobody twisted your words.

    I just think you are wrong where it comes to Marc Trestman. Everywhere he's been he has declined in year 2.

    Maybe you should look into his history and because you believe things that are not supported by facts.

    The bolded is not something you can prove, which is why you haven't attempted to do so.

    Also, i said EXCLUDING Marshall and Forte in regards to players having career years under Trestman. And Cutler is playing the most efficient football of his career (which is sad) under Trestman. QBR, completion percentage and TD's hold more weight than passing yards when evaluating QB performance, and while he's playing poorly, he's still playing better than he ever has before.

    This is beyond silly to argue at this point. You don't really have much to say and are just hanging onto claims that were never made, for the sake of argument. And your assertions are baseless. By your own logic, Adam Gase should be considered a poor coordinator since the Broncos have "declined" statistically from last season to this season. I suspect you know the 2nd season decline argument is a major reach, which is why you keep trying to derail, while also refusing to provide the so called statistics that support your claim

  12. Results show that prior to him arriving, those skill players weren't much to begin with, outside of Marshall and Forte. He made Josh McCown look like an all-pro last season. His system is proven.

    These are not your words? You did not call him a genius in an earlier post?

    Just an aside: When you post something, it stays here so we can go back and re-read it.

    You spoke of the Bears saying his system is proven. Earlier you did speak of him as a genius.

    Its not. He's not In my opinion. You chose not to accept that.

    You can be a denier. That's your right.

    Now you say your words are twisted..so I go back and get your words

    You spoke in contradiction to results, which I showed..

    I debate what you say. That's why you post here.

    Facts don't support you but you'd accept him and his losing record. You have that right.

    WE can bring back Abe Gibron and Dave Wannstadt, too

    I'd like the Bears to win. That's my angle. They don't have the right guy, in my mind.

    I don't agree with your assessment of Marc. I think its proven in 2 years.

    The record shows he did not make his offensive players better (not just here but in 4 other places) gig forward.

    That was his challenge.

    But he's got a 3-year deal and word is, he'll get that 3rd year.

    This is a mess. At least make your responses in bold so people can differentiate whom said what.

    You quoted me, yet nowhere in any of those quotes can you find me saying Trestman has been a success in Chicago. What I DID say was that his system is proven and offensives have improved under said system. The Bears are a mess and he is not a good head coach, but you cannot deny the offense is better than it was before he arrived. He would make a good coordinator because of his offensive mind, but he's not a leader. Not that hard a concept to understand.

    You keep adding to what I'm saying, in an attempt to deflect from the fact that your assertion that his offenses tail off after one season is utter nonsense, and you've yet to back your claim up with any substantial evidence.

    I'm not letting you off the hook from providing evidence of your claims. So before you inevitably try and twist my words yet again, deliver evidence of your claims.

    Until you can do so, there no need for you to further respond to me

  13. Don't run away from your opinion..for sake of arguement.

    Marc Trestman is a bad NFL head coach (13-16 overall) and a mediocre offensive coordinator.

    You can have him for your team..who ever that is/But this thread is about the Bears.

    He should not longer be in Chicago after this year.

    You feel he's been a success with the Bearsand he has no.

    He has no sustained success accomplishments of Canada, as I detailed.

    He's the Bears head coach brought in to help the offense. He is the defacto OC. He calls the plays.

    Its his offensive theory.

    You feel this 5-8 season is an accomplishment. I think its a bust. ...All players except for Bdennett have declined.

    There's no denying that in the real world. Same thing happened in 3 other places as OC../

    You say you want him.

    I want them to let him go so you can have him on your hypothetical team.

    I did not say any of the bolded. You're deluding your own argument more and more with the clear hatred and bias you have against this man.

    You haven't provided any facts in this thread. Just generalizations that you refuse to backup with solid numbers to support your assertions... Because you can't. You're lying

    The fact that you have to intentionally twist my words is proof enough that your credibility amounts to zilch

  14. and the only thing that maters is..do the Bears keep him or let him go.

    Remember the title of the thread?

    Making him the OC isn't an option../

    I said if he were fired, I would take him as an OC if I were a team looking to hire one. You responded to that statement by trying to discredit his accomplishments. Don't try to backtrack now

  15. In 989..Tertsman was OC and QB coach in Detroit and Scott Mitchell passed for 3,500 yards.

    He declined the next year under Marc T..and changes were made..

    In 1995, Marc Trestman's first year..as OC..SF led the NFL in offense but they tailed off the next year and coaching changes were made

    In 1998..Jake Plummer threw for 3800 yards in Marc Tressman's first year in Denver...

    He tailed off badly after that and Trestman moved on.

    In 2002, Marc Trestman's offense (he was the OC) was No.1 in the NFL in his first year in Oakland.

    the offense tailed off the next year..and declined

    He went to Canada and wont the Grey Cup....as a head coach

    and now in 2013..Marc T's team was excellent offensively ...but they finished 8-8

    ..the next year...2014... all skill players except fro Martellus Bennett have declined.....and the team is headed for the basement

    That, in a nutshell, is Marc Trestman's track record.

    You have 3 choices with him (not anybody else)...fire him...demlote him as OC...or make no changes at all.

    the Bears, if what I'm hearing is correct, want Trestman to get the 3 years they signed him for.

    And keep in mind its very hard to bring in quality coordinators for a losing head coach who has one year left on his deal.

    You're not being truthful and you know it. Post the numbers of each season you're comparing and let anyone willing to entertain your assertion decide for themselves whether his offenses "tailed off" in his 2nd season. Most of the teams/players mentioned had career seasons under Trestman. That is not something you can just throw out of the discussion solely because it inconveniences your argument.

    And Cutler has had career highs in completion percentage, QB rating and touchdowns under Trestman. That certainly qualifies as "career best" in regards to Cutlers career.

    Your tangent about the team's record and his inabilities as a head coach are irrelevant to my saying he'd make a good offensivs coordinator. That's the only thing I've asserted in this thread

  16. His system is a proven failure.

    All of Tretsman's teams have declined offensively In his second year.....every one.

    Everywhere he's been connected to the offense in the NFL. What happened to the Bears offense always happens in Marc's 2nd year

    Its on the record.

    ..and the Cutler-Marshall tandem is just a mess..

    Even his coaches don't think Jay can cut it...and Brandon is in his own world...

    the problem is: No one else would have them. Bears may be stuck with all 3.

    Oh, I see. Your issue is you have a bias. None of what you said in that 1st paragraph is even remotely based in reality, and is full of bold generalizations that you're going to have a hard time trying to prove.

    He was only an offensive coordinator for 8 years in the NFL. Many of the teams where he held a job as a position coach, he left after one season because he was being PROMOTED, due to his success developing QB's. These "declines" in the offenses he's been involved in, as you say, include the likes of the Niners "declining" from the #2 overall offense and top scoring offense in 1995 to the #6 overall offense and 3rd ranked scoring offense in 1996. Give me a break...

    And I won't even talk about how you're totally undermining his success in the CFL (which is why he was even interviewed in the first place) which had teams like our very own Colts talking to him for our then head coaching vacancy. You're also ignoring Chicago's regression on the defensive side of the ball, due to the loss of players via retirement and injuries, being a major contributor to their current failures.

    Criticize him as a leader all you want, that all speaks for itself loud and clear... but to attack his résumé as a coordinator/position coach holds little merit. The guy has helped develop numerous good/great QB's. And for as bad as Jay Cutler has been for the duration of his career, he is still posting career bests under Trestman, as did McCown last year (who is once again an afterthought in Tampa Bay, despite the weapons he has at his disposal)

    So once again, I would take Trestman as an OC without much hesitation, as his track record developing offenses is proven

  17. Results dont show that....under his coaching all of the Bears skill players have declined this year

    Results show that prior to him arriving, those skill players weren't much to begin with, outside of Marshall and Forte. He made Josh McCown look like an all-pro last season. His system is proven, his leadership ability isn't. Thus, why I would take him as a coordinator and not a head coach

  18. They still remember how much they were dominated in the trenches during the Super Bowl. The shift to more of a run attack is just the signaling of their mindset changing to playoff football. I think Peyton could still throw it 50 times a game if he wanted to, but they're trying to get away from that and establish a balanced attack for the final stretch of the season. Smart plan, if you ask me. You have to win the trench wars if you want to win it all

  19. We wouldn't have needed the 2nd attempt if we took the extra point on the 1st one. There was no need to gamble that early, because as someone else just said, odds were we were gonna score again anyways. I wouldn't have done it but I don't think it was an egregious mistake either

×
×
  • Create New...