A problem no one seems to be talking about.

[AntonMcG]

Going by those numbers there are 9 sacks unaccounted for...It would be very interesting where they put them blame on them 9 sacks

 

Playcalling may get the game for not identifying blitz perhaps.

[Superman]

Don't get me wrong, I like Pep, I like the idea behind the philosophy as I think it's more sustainable than a Manning type team but we currently do not have the personnel to run it. It's almost like putting the cart before the horse. With all this talk of "win now" from the team leadership I think they need to understand they need to break from their ideology and be more flexible if they want to have short term success. 

 

To the bolded, that might be particularly true in the playoffs, which is why it's important to figure out how to make it work now. Short term success doesn't mean beating the Rams at home (although we should have done that). Short term success means making the playoffs and having some success once we get there. And that won't happen if we don't figure out how to weaponize our running backs.

 

I agree that some tweaks are in order. I just don't think we should go to an extreme. To a certain extent, we should continue forcing the issue with the run (not the way we've been doing, of course), because that's the only way we'll develop our run game.

[AntonMcG]

To the bolded, that might be particularly true in the playoffs, which is why it's important to figure out how to make it work now. Short term success doesn't mean beating the Rams at home (although we should have done that). Short term success means making the playoffs and having some success once we get there. And that won't happen if we don't figure out how to weaponize our running backs.

 

I agree that some tweaks are in order. I just don't think we should go to an extreme. To a certain extent, we should continue forcing the issue with the run (not the way we've been doing, of course), because that's the only way we'll develop our run game.

 

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the offensive system Hamilton has implemented, it is just not how I think this offense should be built. That said, it can definitely work and has proven so in patches this year, but it is so heavily reliant on a successful run game. I don't know where success in the run game is going to come from because right now the pieces we have do not seem to be capable of getting the job done.

[SteelCityColt]

To the bolded, that might be particularly true in the playoffs, which is why it's important to figure out how to make it work now. Short term success doesn't mean beating the Rams at home (although we should have done that). Short term success means making the playoffs and having some success once we get there. And that won't happen if we don't figure out how to weaponize our running backs.

 

I agree that some tweaks are in order. I just don't think we should go to an extreme. To a certain extent, we should continue forcing the issue with the run (not the way we've been doing, of course), because that's the only way we'll develop our run game.

 

Given the time of year the playoffs happen as well, the importance of a decent run game goes up as the cold weather becomes a possible factor. I agree too that one game does not a summer make, but there has been indications and signs of struggle on the Oline and in particular the run game throughout. Not completely absymel by any means as there have been patches of some very good play that show what this O can potentially be. I guess this frustration is similar in a way to my frustration with BA last year in that a few little tweaks could have reaped a more productive O and more importantly a more upright Luck. 

 

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the offensive system Hamilton has implemented, it is just not how I think this offense should be built. That said, it can definitely work and has proven so in patches this year, but it is so heavily reliant on a successful run game. I don't know where success in the run game is going to come from because right now the pieces we have do not seem to be capable of getting the job done.

 

I like some of what I see from it, and I like the idea of being able to run the ball, even to the point of all but declaring the run and daring teams to stop you but with such a reliance on the run game it all falls apart when you can't run.

 

Just out of interest what are your thoughts on how a O should be built?

[MB-ColtsFan]

Personally, I am not a huge fan of the offensive system Hamilton has implemented, it is just not how I think this offense should be built. That said, it can definitely work and has proven so in patches this year, but it is so heavily reliant on a successful run game. I don't know where success in the run game is going to come from because right now the pieces we have do not seem to be capable of getting the job done.

I think we could be better at the run if we do a better job of mixing it up with passing early in the game.

Years back we had a mentality of "execution beats surprise", meaning we were able to be predictable because we had the linemen that were able to beat their man 1-on1to open holes or run the stretch with some success.

We don't have that type of line right now. Opposing teams just stack 9 in the box on 1st and 2nd because we *always* run it (many time leaving 3rd and long!). It's just TOO predictable.

[AntonMcG]

Given the time of year the playoffs happen as well, the importance of a decent run game goes up as the cold weather becomes a possible factor. I agree too that one game does not a summer make, but there has been indications and signs of struggle on the Oline and in particular the run game throughout. Not completely absymel by any means as there have been patches of some very good play that show what this O can potentially be. I guess this frustration is similar in a way to my frustration with BA last year in that a few little tweaks could have reaped a more productive O and more importantly a more upright Luck. 

 

 

I like some of what I see from it, and I like the idea of being able to run the ball, even to the point of all but declaring the run and daring teams to stop you but with such a reliance on the run game it all falls apart when you can't run.

 

Just out of interest what are your thoughts on how a O should be built?

 

 

The game is changing, there has been a shift in mentality from the 'control the clock' mentality, to the 'lets make as many plays, as quickly as possible' approach we have been seing for quite a while with the likes of Oregon and Clemson. Brady and Manning have both adopted this philosophy in the last few years, with Josh McDaniels, in my opinion, implementing it in a NFL-friendly version and the Broncos pretty much copying it.

 

To do this you need versatile personnel, because you do not have a lot of subbing in and out during drives. Two-TE sets are perfect for this type of offense, especially when you have players who bring different things to the table. We have (had) that... Allen is a great blocker and superb catcher over the middle, whilst Fleener is a matchup nightmare lined up at TE who can also move outwide. We also have a receiving core who proved last year they can move around, lined up on either end and in the slot.

 

Now, often with this type of system, you will find yourself in a spread formation, which means pass rushers struggle to get to the QB. Also, this is a dream for an RB who is good in space (see LeSean McCoy in the Chip Kelly offense). I think Donald Brown is that type of back, and Richardson would thrive in such a system as well. Top the all off with an extremely mobile QB who can run a no-huddle system, can read a defense, go through four progressions with ease, and you have a seriously potent offense.

 

The reason I think this works so well is because it is so hard to defend against... defenses become tired and you ensure you have favourable personnel on the field because they don't have time to sub.

 

There are many ways to win in this league, and Stanford beating Oregon last week certainly proves that good old fashioned clock control can trump a high-octane offense (at least in the college game), however your system is just one aspect, you must have the players, and you must execute as well.

 

People have their opinions, and they are entitled to them (them ones who have some substance behind them anyway). I just think this is the way the game is going and we have the perfect offense to implement it with, especially with Luck. People argue the whole 'playoff-type' offense thing, which I think is overplayed, plenty of high-octane offenses have been successful in the playoffs... they are playing the same teams they played in the regular season, it just comes down to execution and not choking.

 

Plus, I just think this type of system is so much more enjoyable to watch, which of course,as a fan, is very important

[AntonMcG]

I think we could be better at the run if we do a better job of mixing it up with passing early in the game.

Years back we had a mentality of "execution beats surprise", meaning we were able to be predictable because we had the linemen that were able to beat their man 1-on1to open holes or run the stretch with some success.

We don't have that type of line right now. Opposing teams just stack 9 in the box on 1st and 2nd because we *always* run it (many time leaving 3rd and long!). It's just TOO predictable.

 

I dunno, I don't think you can disguise runs as much as you can with passes, all you need is one hesitant step to give you time for a throw.

 

No one expected that horrendous Havali run call on 3-10 in the first quarter, but there was no chance it was ever going for a first down.

[SteelCityColt]

 

Plus, I just think this type of system is so much more enjoyable to watch, which of course,as a fan, is very important

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail, and I have to say I agree a lot with what you say especially the bolded part. I think what is important to say about the Bronco's offense is that they still have the ability to run the ball/clock when they want which can be vital in situational football. If they had a solid D they would be really scary as a team...

 

I guess the thinking of bringing Pep in was to take Luck back into the comfort zone of a familiar system, but we just don't have the personnel (nor the match ups up front) to pull it off currently.

 

What I will say too is that as Colts fan we should be very used to the idea of a simple (i.e. few plays) but up tempo adjusted at the line of scrimmage offense and know just how effective it can be. In fact I think the Manning era was the springboard for thinking behind "package" plays which removes the need for an as cerebral QB.

 

Normally I'm very positive when it comes to the team/coaching but reading your description .... makes me realise how much potential this O could have in such a system.

[AntonMcG]

Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail, and I have to say I agree a lot with what you say especially the bolded part. I think what is important to say about the Bronco's offense is that they still have the ability to run the ball/clock when they want which can be vital in situational football. If they had a solid D they would be really scary as a team...

 

I guess the thinking of bringing Pep in was to take Luck back into the comfort zone of a familiar system, but we just don't have the personnel (nor the match ups up front) to pull it off currently.

 

What I will say too is that as Colts fan we should be very used to the idea of a simple (i.e. few plays) but up tempo adjusted at the line of scrimmage offense and know just how effective it can be. In fact I think the Manning era was the springboard for thinking behind "package" plays which removes the need for an as cerebral QB.

 

Normally I'm very positive when it comes to the team/coaching but reading your description .... makes me realise how much potential this O could have in such a system.

 

Yeah the Broncos ran the clock for most of the second half last weekend when they had the lead, but they average 71 plays per game, most in the league. It is great to have the capabilities of doing both.

 

The stuff about Manning is very true, however it was not overly up-tempo when he was here. Yes, he would run the no-huddle, but he would wind down the play clock whilst making adjustments at the line. The difference now is there is often 30 seconds left on the play clock for him when the ball is snapped.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the logic behind bringing Hamilton in, and the system they have implemented.

 

It is just not what I would do if the relatively unfeasible eventuality arose that Hamilton was fired and I was named OC of the Colts.

 

Just because Luck hasn't played in a faced, no huddle, spread offense before, doesn't mean he wouldn't thrive in one.

[kjyb]

I thought T-Rich has done a decent job in pass blocking, I certainly wouldn't say he is a liability in it, he is new, so he has obviously missed some blocks, which is expected

ea trent is like vick ballard at blocking pretty good 

[SteelCityColt]

Yeah the Broncos ran the clock for most of the second half last weekend when they had the lead, but they average 71 plays per game, most in the league. It is great to have the capabilities of doing both.

 

The stuff about Manning is very true, however it was not overly up-tempo when he was here. Yes, he would run the no-huddle, but he would wind down the play clock whilst making adjustments at the line. The difference now is there is often 30 seconds left on the play clock for him when the ball is snapped.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the logic behind bringing Hamilton in, and the system they have implemented.

 

It is just not what I would do if the relatively unfeasible eventuality arose that Hamilton was fired and I was named OC of the Colts.

 

Just because Luck hasn't played in a faced, no huddle, spread offense before, doesn't mean he wouldn't thrive in one.

 

My apologies, I worded it badly describing Manning's offense as up-tempo, I was more referring to him in effect being the Offensive Co-ordinator out there on the field, yet he only in reality used a small number of plays. Why? Because he didn't have to have reams and reams of plays, just the ability to read the defense and pick them apart (the Hi-Lo concept comes to mind as the trademark play of that era). Heck teams would know what plays we were going to be picking from and still couldn't stop us. If my  understanding of package plays is correct then the idea is to attack a D on with a number of concepts built into one play and to simplify the reads for the QB. As long as he reads the D correctly it will be a successful play. 

 

The more I think on it, it does seem silly to "handcuff" Luck into a "traditional" system. I guess it would be kind of nice to see Manning (who IMO revolutionised the game) leading to another QB playing at a top level in a O that's pushing boundaries. In Pep's defense I will say with the injuries we've had we may never know what the O was meant to look like (Allen springs to mind here) with a fully fit roster. 

[SteelCityColt]

ea trent is like vick ballard at blocking pretty good 

 

I wouldn't say pass blocking was Vick's strength, he got better at it for sure but not to the level of Richardson IMO.

[AntonMcG]

My apologies, I worded it badly describing Manning's offense as up-tempo, I was more referring to him in effect being the Offensive Co-ordinator out there on the field, yet he only in reality used a small number of plays. Why? Because he didn't have to have reams and reams of plays, just the ability to read the defense and pick them apart (the Hi-Lo concept comes to mind as the trademark play of that era). Heck teams would know what plays we were going to be picking from and still couldn't stop us. If my  understanding of package plays is correct then the idea is to attack a D on with a number of concepts built into one play and to simplify the reads for the QB. As long as he reads the D correctly it will be a successful play. 

 

The more I think on it, it does seem silly to "handcuff" Luck into a "traditional" system. I guess it would be kind of nice to see Manning (who IMO revolutionised the game) leading to another QB playing at a top level in a O that's pushing boundaries. In Pep's defense I will say with the injuries we've had we may never know what the O was meant to look like (Allen springs to mind here) with a fully fit roster. 

 

Yeah, Manning only used 12 plays under Tom Moore I think. It was all about execution and reading defenses as you say. I always felt that Manning relied a little too much on timing which was often his issue against good press cornerbacks. But I digress....

 

It is easy forget the losses the Colts have had on offense this season, few teams would prosper in a similar situation. Brady being the prime example.

[kjyb]

I wouldn't say pass blocking was Vick's strength, he got better at it for sure but not to the level of Richardson IMO.

yea trent put the full contact on anyone 

[SteelCityColt]

Yeah, Manning only used 12 plays under Tom Moore I think. It was all about execution and reading defenses as you say. I always felt that Manning relied a little too much on timing which was often his issue against good press cornerbacks. But I digress....

 

It is easy forget the losses the Colts have had on offense this season, few teams would prosper in a similar situation. Brady being the prime example.

 

Difference there being is Belichick is the master of changing things up to suit the roster he has to work with while keeping Brady inside his comfort zone as much as possible whereas we still seem to be pushing the square shape (Trent?) into the round hole (the hole our O-line failing to open? ). Unfair maybe in that Pep has nowhere near the experience of Belichik.

[AntonMcG]

Difference there being is Belichick is the master of changing things up to suit the roster he has to work with while keeping Brady inside his comfort zone as much as possible whereas we still seem to be pushing the square shape (Trent?) into the round hole (the hole our O-line failing to open? ). Unfair maybe in that Pep has nowhere near the experience of Belichik.

 

Belichick is more of a defensive guy. I give a lot of the credit to Josh McDaniels, who is the best OC in football in my opinion.

[SteelCityColt]

Belichick is more of a defensive guy. I give a lot of the credit to Josh McDaniels, who is the best OC in football in my opinion.

 

Now that is a man who knows how to have some fun with an O ;) Even managed to fool people into thinking Tebow was a NFL QB....

[AntonMcG]

Now that is a man who knows how to have some fun with an O ;) Even managed to fool people into thinking Tebow was a NFL QB....

 

lol, McDaniels was not a good Head Coach... but when it comes to designing a playbook and offensive system, there is none better. He is a pioneer and does not get the credit he deserves for what he has done.

 

And to be fair, I thought Tebow could be a decent pro, until he played of course.

[chad72]

Another thing not being talked about is how we have few turnovers created by our D in the last couple of games.

[Gavin]

Playcalling may get the game for not identifying blitz perhaps.

Thats on Luck for not identifying, playcalling is not designed to account for the blitz a ton(except it is for the scheme Pep installed....Many checkdowns are built in, Arians scheme was also the same way, yes he wanted to push the ball down field and get what he deemed "chunk plays" but he consistently had short routes for Luck to choose from and Luck didn't do it much), Its up to Luck to point out the blitzer and make him back off and also its up the the wr that he is going to run a hot route or cut off his route (since he predetermines where he is going with the ball alot instead of scanning all of his reads)

[AntonMcG]

Thats on Luck for not identifying, playcalling is not designed to account for the blitz a ton(except it is for the scheme Pep installed....Many checkdowns are built in, Arians scheme was also the same way, yes he wanted to push the ball down field and get what he deemed "chunk plays" but he consistently had short routes for Luck to choose from and Luck didn't do it much), Its up to Luck to point out the blitzer and make him back off and also its up the the wr that he is going to run a hot route or cut off his route (since he predetermines where he is going with the ball alot instead of scanning all of his reads)

 

It is as much on Hamilton as Luck. Blitzes are disguised more often than not, understanding the other teams tendancies is as important as identifying at the line.

 

There have been a few times this year where screens were ran and were not adjusted at the line, so you would think Hamilton anticipated the blitz in those situations...

[Warhorse]

pretty sure i said we have no blocking tightends or good blocking running backs healthy right now.......

Just adding levity.

[Bluefire4]

I can now see why people wanted Hopkins and Warford with the first round pick.

[Balzer40]

I can now see why people wanted Hopkins and Warford with the first round pick.

 

 

 

I was the one that originally brought up Warford as our 1st rd. pick. People said "aw, no way, thats way too early blah blah blah. He has been the best rookie O-lineman from the draft and would have done us much more good than Werner. That's not a knock on Werner, but we didn't need him IMO, especially over a good O-lineman.

[Bluefire4]

I was the one that originally brought up Warford as our 1st rd. pick. People said "aw, no way, thats way too early blah blah blah. He has been the best rookie O-lineman from the draft and would have done us much more good than Werner. That's not a knock on Werner, but we didn't need him IMO, especially over a good O-lineman.

That's true. If we could go back I would have kept Jerry Hughes and drafted Warford but I wasn't thinking that before the draft.

[GoColts8818]

In theory this would be why Saunders was re-signed.

[Narcosys]

Per PFF:

Castonzo - (608 snaps - LT (9)) - 3 sacks - 3 hits - 26 hurries

Cherilus - (607 snaps RT - (9)) - 2 sacks - 7 hits - 18 hurries

Thorton - (542 snaps - LG (8) RG (1)) - 5 sacks - 11 hits - 9 hurries

McGlynn - (487 snaps - RG (8)) - 2 sacks - 8 hits - 9 hurries

Satele - (433 snaps - C) - 0 sacks - 4 hits - 6 hurries

McGlynn - (72 snaps - C) - 1 sack - 1 hit - 0 hurries

Link - (225 snaps - RG (4)) - 0 sacks - 2 hits - 7 hurries

Reitz - (66 snaps - LG (1) RG (6)) - 0 sacks - 0 hits - 1 hurry

If im reading this correctly. Castonzo is the worst. Though thornton could be argued to be just as bad. Tnx for the info.

[Dustin]

If im reading this correctly. Castonzo is the worst. Tnx for the info.

 

No. McGlynn is the worst. Exterior lineman give up much more pressure on average then interior lineman because more oft than not they are facing the teams best pass rushers. 

 

Castanzo and Cherilus are both giving decent pass protection in relation to other OTs. 

 

Mike McGlynn is currently the 2nd worst pass blocking guard in the NFL. 

[Narcosys]

The players giving up the sacks are not entirely indicative of who is to blame along the line. Of course most of your sacks, hits and hurries are going to come from the tackles, because they are blocking the pass rushers. Interior pass rushers will never get to the QB as much, however,if the interior allow the pocket to collapse, they are making life very difficult for their tackles.

And i was thinking that too. The the outside will always be pressed more. Like all the time. But its still high numbers over just 9 games. Of course i havent looked up all the other teams either so its strictly conjecture.

[Surge89]

The game is changing, there has been a shift in mentality from the 'control the clock' mentality, to the 'lets make as many plays, as quickly as possible' approach we have been seing for quite a while with the likes of Oregon and Clemson. Brady and Manning have both adopted this philosophy in the last few years, with Josh McDaniels, in my opinion, implementing it in a NFL-friendly version and the Broncos pretty much copying it.

 

To do this you need versatile personnel, because you do not have a lot of subbing in and out during drives. Two-TE sets are perfect for this type of offense, especially when you have players who bring different things to the table. We have (had) that... Allen is a great blocker and superb catcher over the middle, whilst Fleener is a matchup nightmare lined up at TE who can also move outwide. We also have a receiving core who proved last year they can move around, lined up on either end and in the slot.

 

Now, often with this type of system, you will find yourself in a spread formation, which means pass rushers struggle to get to the QB. Also, this is a dream for an RB who is good in space (see LeSean McCoy in the Chip Kelly offense). I think Donald Brown is that type of back, and Richardson would thrive in such a system as well. Top the all off with an extremely mobile QB who can run a no-huddle system, can read a defense, go through four progressions with ease, and you have a seriously potent offense.

 

The reason I think this works so well is because it is so hard to defend against... defenses become tired and you ensure you have favourable personnel on the field because they don't have time to sub.

 

There are many ways to win in this league, and Stanford beating Oregon last week certainly proves that good old fashioned clock control can trump a high-octane offense (at least in the college game), however your system is just one aspect, you must have the players, and you must execute as well.

 

People have their opinions, and they are entitled to them (them ones who have some substance behind them anyway). I just think this is the way the game is going and we have the perfect offense to implement it with, especially with Luck. People argue the whole 'playoff-type' offense thing, which I think is overplayed, plenty of high-octane offenses have been successful in the playoffs... they are playing the same teams they played in the regular season, it just comes down to execution and not choking.

 

Plus, I just think this type of system is so much more enjoyable to watch, which of course,as a fan, is very important

 

While you make a ton of sense and I in fact agree with a majority of what you have said, BUT you fail to see circumstance.  We do not have 10+ Year vets Manning, Brady, or Bree's.  We have a young learning Andrew Luck.  Also another factor you fail to point out when it comes to this style of offense that the NFL has moved to is the singular point of failure that is easily seen.  When the offense revolves around the QB the QB cannot have a bad game.  Period.  This leaves you susceptible to human error and the chance that your QB may just get out smarted by a DC or just flat out have a bad game.  Either of those situations happen you find yourself in a hard place.  There is a reason why time management football works and that is because it is a team reliant philosophy.  Any aspect of the offense can spark the other parts, because the other parts are built to self-achieve.  Not one part of the O is completely reliant on any other part or precise timing from a certain QB.  These types of offenses tend to have more success in playoff atmospheres because the human error element is taken out of the equation by a large margin.  You then rely on scheme and things that the OC can control and group a team into achieving.

 

Don't get me wrong I love the new offenses of today but there is a very good reason why Running the ball and stopping the run is advocated by so many coaches in the NFL.  It doesn't play with odds it puts the odds more into your favor than "putting all of your eggs in one basket" so to speak.  Couple that with a very able and talented QB and you have a super bowl winning formula.  This is the exact reason why Belichek drafts D-Lineman and LB's and high talented OL.  Because he knows if the trenches are won and he has an elite QB there is hardly going to be a team that will beat him.  Look now today, he has lost his best run defense lineman and has almost no receivers and yet his team is still winning games.  Why?  His team can still stop the run because of said LB'ers (at least out of the endzone) and his team can still run the ball cause of said OL.  It is just a formula that is very hard to go against because it doesn't have many faults.  And those faults can be masked by a good QB.

[AntonMcG]

While you make a ton of sense and I in fact agree with a majority of what you have said, BUT you fail to see circumstance.  We do not have 10+ Year vets Manning, Brady, or Bree's.  We have a young learning Andrew Luck.  Also another factor you fail to point out when it comes to this style of offense that the NFL has moved to is the singular point of failure that is easily seen.  When the offense revolves around the QB the QB cannot have a bad game.  Period.  This leaves you susceptible to human error and the chance that your QB may just get out smarted by a DC or just flat out have a bad game.  Either of those situations happen you find yourself in a hard place.  There is a reason why time management football works and that is because it is a team reliant philosophy.  Any aspect of the offense can spark the other parts, because the other parts are built to self-achieve.  Not one part of the O is completely reliant on any other part or precise timing from a certain QB.  These types of offenses tend to have more success in playoff atmospheres because the human error element is taken out of the equation by a large margin.  You then rely on scheme and things that the OC can control and group a team into achieving.

 

Don't get me wrong I love the new offenses of today but there is a very good reason why Running the ball and stopping the run is advocated by so many coaches in the NFL.  It doesn't play with odds it puts the odds more into your favor than "putting all of your eggs in one basket" so to speak.  Couple that with a very able and talented QB and you have a super bowl winning formula.  This is the exact reason why Belichek drafts D-Lineman and LB's and high talented OL.  Because he knows if the trenches are won and he has an elite QB there is hardly going to be a team that will beat him.  Look now today, he has lost his best run defense lineman and has almost no receivers and yet his team is still winning games.  Why?  His team can still stop the run because of said LB'ers (at least out of the endzone) and his team can still run the ball cause of said OL.  It is just a formula that is very hard to go against because it doesn't have many faults.  And those faults can be masked by a good QB.

 

I think you misinterpreted slightly. I am not talking about an agressive, downfield offense. I am talking about a high-percentage passing system, that emphasizes slants and screens. This is very much what is built around both Brady and Manning. I think you may underestimate Luck's ability to run this offense, he would grow into it over time, and has the perfect skill set for it.  Also, this does produce a strong running game. Look at Moreno this year, Ridley last year and LeSean McCoy in the Chip Kelly system... the spread offense is perfect for an RB that is good in space, besides RB dumpoffs are pretty much glorified run plays and occur regularly in such a system.

 

In relation to the Patriots, that is exactly what I am talking about. The o-line there benefits greatly from the fact that Brady rarely holds the ball longer than 2 seconds... the spread, dink and dunk offense is a lineman's dream. As for the defense, I agree, stopping the run is hugely important, but I am talking purely offense here.

 

It all comes down to personal preference. I certainly understand the logic behind a control the clock, power run, west coast system, and acknowledged as much in the post you quoted... I just do not think it takes full advantage of the players we have here.

[Surge89]

I think you misinterpreted slightly. I am not talking about an agressive, downfield offense. I am talking about a high-percentage passing system, that emphasizes slants and screens. This is very much what is built around both Brady and Manning. I think you may underestimate Luck's ability to run this offense, he would grow into it over time, and has the perfect skill set for it. Also, this does produce a strong running game. Look at Moreno this year, Ridley last year and LeSean McCoy in the Chip Kelly system... the spread offense is perfect for an RB that is good in space, besides RB dumpoffs are pretty much glorified run plays and occur regularly in such a system.

In relation to the Patriots, that is exactly what I am talking about. The o-line there benefits greatly from the fact that Brady rarely holds the ball longer than 2 seconds... the spread, dink and dunk offense is a lineman's dream. As for the defense, I agree, stopping the run is hugely important, but I am talking purely offense here.

It all comes down to personal preference. I certainly understand the logic behind a control the clock, power run, west coast system, and acknowledged as much in the post you quoted... I just do not think it takes full advantage of the players we have here.

For your first paragraph. Thats my point. Manning and Brady use those regularly but lets not act like throwing a slant and screen in the NFL is an easy thing. Luck has shown that his inconsistent throwing is something that will take time to grow out of. And that is my worry, not that Luck wont understand nor handle the offense but if he can make the throws on a consistent basis. Luck isnt being paid like Manning and Brady right now so why pigeon hole this team to a QB focused system? That all in all is my point.

Also Brady doesnt "take 2 seconds" to throw. He is often sitting back there 5 and 6 seconds behind a fortress of talent. And the reason I bring up the Patriots is because of the formula they used when Brady was not being paid. They found a system that works and that is the reason why we are emulating.

[AntonMcG]

For your first paragraph. Thats my point. Manning and Brady use those regularly but lets not act like throwing a slant and screen in the NFL is an easy thing. Luck has shown that his inconsistent throwing is something that will take time to grow out of. And that is my worry, not that Luck wont understand nor handle the offense but if he can make the throws on a consistent basis. Luck isnt being paid like Manning and Brady right now so why pigeon hole this team to a QB focused system? That all in all is my point.

Also Brady doesnt "take 2 seconds" to throw. He is often sitting back there 5 and 6 seconds behind a fortress of talent. And the reason I bring up the Patriots is because of the formula they used when Brady was not being paid. They found a system that works and that is the reason why we are emulating.

 

I think it is anything but pigeon-holing this team... in fact it makes them much more dynamic and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely QB dependant... look at Nick Foles in Philidelphia. Throwing a screen is easy.... diagnosing the defense to know when to throw a screen is difficult... Luck has the football IQ to do this, and if he makes a few mistakes along the way, so be it. That is why I believe having Bruce Arians as OC in Luck's first year was the perfect baptism of fire... he made a lot of mistakes, but he was given a lot of responsibility and is a better QB for it. But to each his own. Again, I understand the logic behind the current system and have said so several times, so I don't know why you are trying to convince me of its merits... I just do not believe it gets the best out of this offense.

 

Brady gets rid of the ball quicker than any other QB in the league. His average time from snap to release is 2.49 seconds.